[cgl_discussion] POC Meeting Agenda 9:30 PST
Fleischer, Julie N
julie.n.fleischer at intel.com
Tue Nov 4 13:33:33 PST 2003
One other errata that Terence forwarded me from an old
>Found a minor bug on page 50. "For example, AVL.7.1 Process-level
>Non-intrusive...." should be changed to "For example, AVL.8.1
>Process-level..." The AVL.7.1 should be changed to AVL.8.1...
**These views are not necessarily those of my employer.**
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org
> [mailto:cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org]On Behalf Of Steven Dake
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 1:21 PM
> To: cgl_discussion at osdl.org
> Subject: [cgl_discussion] POC Meeting Agenda 9:30 PST
> Please note the time has moved for the POC meeting to account for the
> clustering meeting that will take place at 8:30 AM PST. Also, the
> conference dialin has changed and will be published to cgl-techboard.
> Define errata process
> Apply errata process to currently known errata (if there is time)
> To prepare, please read specs and possible errata below so we can
> discuss the errata in detail.
> Possible Errata #1
> I guess I wasn't making myself clear in the original email.
> What I was trying to address are two things:
> 1) RFC 2452, RFC 2454, RFC 2466 will all be obsolete soon. And my
> work will be based on the upcoming Internet Draft, which merges
> the IPv4 and IPv6 mib.
> 2) There is no new Internet Draft for RFC 2454 (UDP mib)
> defined yet.
> So I think we should down-grade it to Priority 2.
> I suggest we change this requirement for CGL 2.0 into something like
> the following:
> Description: CGL shall provide required support for all IPv6 MIBs as
> specified by IETF IPv6 WG. The support has to be based on the new IP
> MIB standard, including:
> * "Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)"
> * "Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol
This means that internally within the kernel IPv6 stack, statistics
information corresponding to MIB data must be gathered and saved for
retrieval by an SNMP Agent.
And also we should add another requirement to specifically address the
UDP mib issue.
Possible Errata #2
In the document
> the acronym SCTP is expanded incorrectly.
> SCTP really stands for "Stream Control Transmission Protocol".
> (or Super TCP, but we're not supposed to say that in public :-).
Possible Errata #3:
statement says "must report a problem immediately".
what does immediately mean? Immediately means to me 0 msec which is an
impossible goal... Shouldn't this be a time interval?
Possible Errata #4
statement says "there is not easy way to configure it"
"there is no easy way to configure it"
Possible Errata #5
checkpoint read/write access time that is less then 5ms for each 4k page
for two nodes
Possible Errata #6
Does this mean a checkpoint between two nodes of a 4k page takes less
then 5ms from entry to delivery? Should we clarify what is meant?
Possible Errata #7
includes an extra bullet
is text missing, or is the bullet extra?
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion