Re: TML Service Primitive Update

On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 23:41 +0800, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> Jamal,
> 
> Thanks very much for the response. Pls see reply in line.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]>
> 
> > On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 20:46 +0800, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> > 
> > > How about others (also the authors) thoughts?
> > > 
> > 
> > I agree with Joel's view; in addition, the text still has a lot of
> Jamal, the text as "...A ForCES PL implementation must be portable across..." 
> were originally added by you :). (I'm not sure it is also for the protocol 
> document). That's why I asked your thought. 
> 

I think that language is probably too strong and it is not too late to
fix in the protocol draft as well.

> > "howto" type of "features". 
> > I think you still have too many "features" that end up
> > tying things to some specific operations in some specific OSes. 
> > This document should be making recommendations, not say "this is how it
> > is done". It must never be imposing the how-to achieve things.
> > I sent you private emails on the topic already but didnt receive
> > responses - so a few of the thoughts are below:
> Jamal, I have sent you a bunch of emails with the responses regarding this. 
> I don't know if something wrong with the emails or not, or other reasons? 
> Maybe we have to use this list also for the private comm.:)
> May be I need to resend you these emails.
> 

Please resend them because they never got to me at all. I am really
sorry to bring this up in the list instead of privately. 

> > 
> > 1) In the events section where there are some events that are described
> > such as congestion alert, DOS alert etc. It is not defined how such
> You mean we lack detailed definition? I'm afraid it may really lead to 
> too 'featured' specific operations,which is as you opposed in above text.
> 
> > things get detected by the TML. It is also not mentioned how  such
> > information is used by the PL. An example of what would be useful would
> > have been something like:
> > 
> > "In cases where the OS is capable of detecting ECN (Early/explicit
> > congestion notification) where the underlying IP protocol is capable of
> > of passing information to the application, then the TML could pass such
> > information to the PL. The PL could use this information for example to
> > adjust its sending rates or increase or reduce the priority of certain
> > PL messages, etc"
> This text has already been added in the new update. Pls check it.
> 

Did you update the xml or the .doc?
I sent a fixed xml version, did you get that?
I am supposed to be working for a communications company actually,
Only email isnt reliable communication for me lately;-> 
Please send me the headers etc of when you sent the emails so i can
follow up on this side. 

In any case, lets take it off the list and resolve it that way.
If you have updated the xml send it as well.

cheers,
jamal