[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    Re: FMarker, RFMarkInt and SFMarkInt negotiation

    --- Julian Satran <> wrote:
    > What would the IT and TI add? The information is
    > already available in the 
    > PDU (IT and IT PDUS are different).
    They would add clarity and consistency to text
    The concepts being negotiated are
    "fixed interval markers for the initiator to target
    direction" and "fixed interval markers for the target
    to initiator direction". So why should the keys used
    in negotiating these concepts be different depending
    on who sent them? If I'm implementing negotiation, I
    now have to do an extra mapping from a key (e.g.,
    RFMarkInt) to the concept (ITFMarkInt or TIFMarkInt)
    and this mapping is different for initiators and
    targets (for the same operation, where operations
    are send/receive). Plus, if the sequence I mentioned
      (initiator offers) FMarker=receive; RFMarkInt=17,51
      (target responds)  FMarker=send;    SFMarkInt=34
    is correct, then it does not fit well in section
    2.2.4, where the general format seems to mandate
    answering with the same KEY (not the same concept).
    A little further down there is also a requirement
    to answer numerical negotiations with the "required
    key". If the "required key" may or may not be the
    same key that was received, this should be mentioned.
    (Of course, one could argue that this is not a
    numerical negotiation, because ranges are allowed,
    not just single numbers, but this, too is not obvious
    to the casual reader.)
    What I was proposing was simply naming the keys
    after the concepts and avoiding the extra mapping
    step and seeming conflicts with 2.2.4. I am a pedant.
    As to FMarker, its negotiation is very different
    from everything else in that it may look like a list
    negotiation because of the list of possible values
    given, but it isn't. It is yet another special-case
    parameter, and one that RFMarkInt and SFMarkInt
    depend on. 
    I was suggesting getting rid of it altogether by
    allowing RFMarkInt/SFMarkInt (or, better yet,
    ITFMarkInt, TIFMarkInt) to carry value 0, which
    would mean that markers are not in use in the
    respective direction.
    Just because all the information is there and because
    implementation is possible, it doesn't mean that it
    cannot be organized more logically and simplify
    IMO, key names should match concept names regardless
    of how and by whom they are being used; and all
    parameter dependencies for operational phase should
    be eliminated.
      Martins Krikis, Intel Corp.
    Disclaimer: these opinions are my own and not
                necessarily those of my employer.
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games


Last updated: Fri Feb 22 15:18:10 2002
8853 messages in chronological order