Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues
"SUBSCRIBE FORCES B. J. Kang" <[email protected]> Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:34:19 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.forces |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <LISTSERV%[email protected]> |
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:20:13 -0400, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: >Jamal and I have been discussing the FE Status variable issue. >The following summarizes my concerns, and if we are prepared to allow >the specification of the legitimate value to set as a comment, my >proposed changes to the status enumeration. > > >The primary issue is that there is no way to cleanly represent the >fact that the CE is only allowed to set the variable to a subset of >the enumeration. (Even SNMP does not handle that formally.) > >As a secondary matter, there is the question of what value the CE >sets the variable to when it wants to turn the FE back on. It can >not set it to either OperUp or OperDown. So we need at least one >more value to represent "the CE has told me to become operational, >but I have not yet managed it." Which is the value the CE would set >the variable to. > >As a minor fillip, since I consider administrative something of >larger scope than CE control, I wanted a distinct value for the CE to >use for "I, the CE, am ordering you to stop." > Thanks for all your help >Yours, >Joel