Hi Jerry, I do think that the initial NSA provider bears some extra responsibility in replying back .... Imagine a chain model where the request was made by a user and then somehow the messages got lost or never made it th the "next-hop" , there may be a case where the information back to the user is lost with no real "responsible party". In my opinion, the initial NSA should carry a little extra of a load in this, after all, it is the point where translation from user request to network resource request occurs. The end user must have one point of contact for each request she or he makes. It will be very difficult for the user to keep up with all the other NSA-NSA calls that are made on behalf of the one request. Thanks, Gigi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Nsi-wg] Another NSI protocol requirement Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:15:14 -0400 From: Jerry Sobieski <jerry@nordu.net> To: gigi_ke@ncsu.edu <gigi_ke@ncsu.edu> CC: NSI WG <nsi-wg@ogf.org> References: <4B9CD3AE.10405@ncsu.edu> Hi Gigi Makes perfect sense! I thought we had this already in one of the reqs. Issue: the provider must always respond back. There is no "initial' NSA-NSA always thinks he is first/only NSA working on this request. J Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Gigi Karmous-Edwards <gigi_ke@ncsu.edu <mailto:gigi_ke@ncsu.edu>> wrote:
All,
As I mentioned on the call last week, I think we need another NSI protocol requirement as following:
The provider agent involved in the /initial /NSI request from an NSI requesting agent (in these cases, the requester agent acts as an /end user or application/), must take on the responsibility of replying back to the end user the result of the request. That is either a failure or success with the correct pointers or Global Identifiers. This needs to be true regardless of weather the initial provider agent uses chain or tree model to reserve a path.
This requirement will have implications on the intermediate messaging that take place between the requesting agents and provider agents along the path. I can also imagine that the messaging to uphold this requirement will be different for tree vs chain.
I hope this makes sense...
Kind regards, Gigi _______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org <mailto:nsi-wg@ogf.org> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg