Hi all,
We are pleased to announce the availability of an NSIS suite release
0.1, currently consisting of GIMPS-06 I-D and a Ping Tool "NSLP"-01,
implemented under a Linux PC platform.
http://user.informatik.uni-goettingen.de/~nsis/
Cheers,
Xiaoming
Acknowledgements
===================================================================
Special thanks to all community members who contributed ideas,
reported problems, provided assitance, and have helped us greatly to
reach the status of this release.
For further information
===================================================================
Questions, enquiries, comments, please kindly report to the
following mailing list:
nsis_imp(a)cs.uni-goettingen.de
hi all,
thanks for the nice draft update. the pdf version looks great.
ciao
hannes
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Tseno Tsenov [mailto:tseno.tsenov@mytum.de]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 2. Juli 2005 16:25
> An: nsis_imp(a)cs.uni-goettingen.de
> Cc: Xiaoming Fu; Elwyn Davies; Tschofenig, Hannes; Cedric Aoun
> Betreff: New format of GIMPS FSM draft -02 (was Re:
> [Nsis_imp] GIMPS FSM draft -01 by mistake)
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> You can find the GIMPS state machine draft in a new format here:
>
>
> http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/draft-fu-nsis-n
> tlp-statemachine-02.txt
> http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/draft-fu-nsis-n
> tlp-statemachine-02.pdf
> http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/draft-fu-nsis-n
> tlp-statemachine-02.nroff
> http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/GIMPS_fsm_diagrams.vsd
>
> The main change is the format of the draft and the diagrams.
> By using .nroff format it is possible to generate .pdf format, which
> can include the diagrams of the FSMs. This approach is taken from
> EAP state machine draft.
>
> Sorry for the big size of the .pdf file - the diagrams are with print
> quality.
>
> Contents of the draft are not changed from v-02 from the
> Interim meeting.
> Based on the interim discussions we might reconsider two of the open
> issues,
> which are:
>
> 1. Route change and local repair mechanisms are not covered
> completely. Currently we provide procedures for local repair in
> the crossover node. Procedures for identifying the crossover node
> are left for further study.
>
> At the interim meeting, Robert commented that this is not an issue
> because the identification of the crossover node is done on the NSLP
> layer? Is this the case?
>
> 4. Currently we use WaitConfirm state in the Responding node FSM, but
> following the DoS prevention approaches for no state installation
> in the Responding node before receiving of Confirm message, we
> consider possible removing of this state. This issue requires
> further investigations.
>
> Unfortunately, it didn't become clear from my presentation
> what is the
> issue
> with the WaitConfirm state :(.
> I think, Elwyn said that he discussed it with Robert...?
>
> What do you think?
> Please consider that we must try to submit the draft until 05.07.
>
>
> Greetings,
> tseno_
>
>
>
Hi all,
You can find the GIMPS state machine draft in a new format here:
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/draft-fu-nsis-ntlp-statemach…http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/draft-fu-nsis-ntlp-statemach…http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/draft-fu-nsis-ntlp-statemach…http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~tseno_tsenov/gimps/GIMPS_fsm_diagrams.vsd
The main change is the format of the draft and the diagrams.
By using .nroff format it is possible to generate .pdf format, which
can include the diagrams of the FSMs. This approach is taken from
EAP state machine draft.
Sorry for the big size of the .pdf file - the diagrams are with print
quality.
Contents of the draft are not changed from v-02 from the Interim meeting.
Based on the interim discussions we might reconsider two of the open issues,
which are:
1. Route change and local repair mechanisms are not covered
completely. Currently we provide procedures for local repair in
the crossover node. Procedures for identifying the crossover node
are left for further study.
At the interim meeting, Robert commented that this is not an issue
because the identification of the crossover node is done on the NSLP
layer? Is this the case?
4. Currently we use WaitConfirm state in the Responding node FSM, but
following the DoS prevention approaches for no state installation
in the Responding node before receiving of Confirm message, we
consider possible removing of this state. This issue requires
further investigations.
Unfortunately, it didn't become clear from my presentation what is the issue
with the WaitConfirm state :(.
I think, Elwyn said that he discussed it with Robert...?
What do you think?
Please consider that we must try to submit the draft until 05.07.
Greetings,
tseno_