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
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> 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 http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
Gigi, This is the requirement that I think incorporates you point - D1.4.6 The Provider NSA must handle an incoming NSI Message completely, returning at a minimum either a confirmation or rejection of the request in its entirety. Does this cover what you had in mind? You can see the others here- http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZTOJNVUoixhZGZ4cjRiemtfMzQyaGZtOG4yZ2o&hl=en Guy P.S I have attached the OGF template for your use. From: Jerry Sobieski [mailto:jerry@nordu.net] Sent: 14 March 2010 14:15 To: gigi_ke@ncsu.edu Cc: NSI WG Subject: Re: [Nsi-wg] Another NSI protocol requirement 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
It depends on the definition of "entirety". My point is really from the initial user request perspective. If there is an entity that is ultimately responsible for replying back to the initial user, than that is fine. thanks, Gigi Guy Roberts wrote:
Gigi,
This is the requirement that I think incorporates you point -
D1.4.6 The /Provider NSA/ *must *handle an incoming NSI /Message /completely, returning at a minimum either a confirmation or rejection of the request in its entirety.
Does this cover what you had in mind?
You can see the others here-
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZTOJNVUoixhZGZ4cjRiemtfMzQyaGZtOG4yZ2o&hl=en <http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZTOJNVUoixhZGZ4cjRiemtfMzQyaGZtOG4yZ2o&hl=en>
Guy
P.S I have attached the OGF template for your use.
*From:* Jerry Sobieski [mailto:jerry@nordu.net] *Sent:* 14 March 2010 14:15 *To:* gigi_ke@ncsu.edu *Cc:* NSI WG *Subject:* Re: [Nsi-wg] Another NSI protocol requirement
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
Gigi, The messaging for chain and tree are planned to be the same. There will probably be different logic implemented in the NSA to manage the tree vs chain difference, it should not affect the protocol. Inder On Mar 14, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Gigi Karmous-Edwards wrote:
I can also imagine that the messaging to uphold this requirement will be different for tree vs chain.
participants (4)
-
Gigi Karmous-Edwards -
Guy Roberts -
Inder Monga -
Jerry Sobieski