Conference azur::mcc

The SRM leads the implemenatation, and at this point WITH in the SRM
isn't leading by much...there are no definitions on how WITH is to be
passed across the call interface available at this point in time.

jill

    and there won't be more details until we are closer to getting an
    implementation of it.
    
    The SRM reference to WITH support in in_entity is in the earlier
    chapter(s) which set the stage. The later chapters detail closer to
    what is implemented. As another example, Chapter 2 refers to
    distributing MMs across machines - support is not in place in later
    chapters or the implementation.
    
    If you have a need for WITH to be implemented "properly", please let
    us know (via mail, not this conference, please) and provide suitable
    supporting information. Honestly - we know how to implement it - it's
    just a simple matter of implementation (along with 1000 other things
    that are just as, or more, important) :-}
    
    Colin

    Although the "need" here is in an early stage, it's during the
    evaluation by a potential Strategic Vendor that this question was
    raised.
    
    The vendor is evaluating how to implement an access and functional
    modules to support "circuit switched" type of (sub)networks.  In order
    to cleanly implement certain functions in a FM, the WITH clause should
    be executed as closely as possible by the network element.  In this
    case the AM is a better place than the FM itself.  However the real
    question was about the syntax and the support therefore from DECmcc.
    I have no further details yet on the exact projected use of this
    clause, but will try to put here a more detailed case in some time.
    
    Dominique.

    The WITH qualifier is also needed for some PNMP requirements.

Setting up  bridge filtering using CMIP Bridge management (as implemented in
Hastings)  really  requires  that  action directives can be issued with WITH
clauses.

Graham

    NCL already supports WITH clause in action verbs.  Although its
    priority is low, so is its cost.
    

Ben,

since you are familiar with MCC, and somewhat with the FCL, I was curious
as to how you thought I might be able to pass down the with clause to the
lower level modules.

thanks
jill

(BTW, Ben the ACLs are almost all done, hopefully by tommorrow)

    Jill, thanks for trusting my memory of MCC that much, but I'm not so
    sure that I remember anymore.  However, I'll take a wild guess.
    There was at one point a separate with clause parameter to MCC$CALL,
    I don't see why that couldn't be used now to get the with Clause to the
    AM.  I had thought that the whole point of the With clause was that it
    would be passed down to the AM, which would then either pass it on to
    the remote agent or implement the WITH filtering directly.  It's been
    a LONG time.  Seems to me that Jim Carey would know the answer to this
    question better than I.
    
    The only fix to NCL was to parse the with clause attribute as an
    attribute, not as an action argument (obvious, isn't it).
    
    Let me know if you need help testing it or anything.

As it stands now the FCL handles complex with clauses, allowing multiple
attribute "expressions" to be AND and OR together. There used to be a place
in the SRM that said the WITH would be passed down in the q_in component
but now there is talk about moving into an "entity filter" bound to the
AES spec. My main concern is how to I (the PM) express to you (the AM)
a complex expression? I would hate to have to pass down a complex ILV
encoding (like the attribute list structure) just to tell the AM what
they are to use as the WITH...more discussion in this area is definitely
needed, and the decmcc developers conference is probably a better place
for this discussion.

thanks
jill