[Nsi-wg] [Fwd: Re: Another NSI protocol requirement]

[Gigi Karmous-Edwards]

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 at nordu.net>
To: 	gigi_ke at ncsu.edu <gigi_ke at ncsu.edu>
CC: 	NSI WG <nsi-wg at ogf.org>
References: 	<4B9CD3AE.10405 at 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 at ncsu.edu 
<mailto:gigi_ke at 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 at ogf.org <mailto:nsi-wg at ogf.org>
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20100314/84a520a7/attachment.html