Re: TML Service Primitive Update

seems the email got lost again:(  
no reply, and no bounce also.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: TML Service Primitive Update


> Jamal,
> 
> I think we have really got problems with the email. I can describe the whole process as here:
> 1. You asked to change the text, I immediately reply that's ok. 
> 2. You sent an email ask why I did not reply, I replied again. This was the last email I received from you.
> 3. I asked you to reply me. With no reply.
> 4. I waited for 3 days, asked again. no reply. I sent a sepcial email only to you (others are also for Alex) to ask if anything has made you unhappy. If so, pls let me know.
> 5. 2-3 days before the meeting, I asked again about the progress, but still with no reply. 
> 6. Therefore, I sent you email to tell to take the editing and to incorparate the changes you proposed. Because it was very hurry that time, I did not use xml to do the changes. Note that there are still many things missed in your version of xml. All headings about SP parameters are missing.
> 7. I posted the changed update to the list.
> 
> That's all the process. 
> But don't worry too much that we still are able to do anything that we can do. I'm really very glad to see that it was just a communication problem and see we can work together again:)
> 
> pls reply to me immediately when you get the email. We still havn't verify the path from my place to yours.
> 
> Thanks,
> Weiming
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]>
> To: "Wang,Weiming" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:51 PM
> Subject: 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
> >