RE: Frames, Transactions, and Elements

John, Per,

I hope that we can reach an agreement on the terminology but do it in
the context of what the industry is using. In particular I care about
the term 'transaction' as the same transaction may have different views,
and yet you don't want to rename transaction just because of using
emulation/ acceleration.

Per's initial proposal is consistent with that. I don't think that the
term frame is needed.

Few notes below,

Shabtay

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-itc@eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Per
Bojsen
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 12:57 PM
>To: itc@eda.org
>Subject: Re: Frames, Transactions, and Elements
>
>Hi John,
>
>> But, within the realm of the SCE-MI world, let's at least
>> use consistent terminology and something upward
>> compatible with SCE-MI 1.
>
>I agree that this is necessary or we're going to continue to
>get lost in misunderstandings.
>
>> Transaction:
>>
>> Element:
>>
>> Frame:
>>
>
>Actually, SCE-MI 1 used the terminology `message' for the unit
>of data transferred in a single call.  I propose that use
>message for what you proposed to call transaction, and transaction
>for what you proposed to call frame. 
[Shabtay] This is in line with SCE-MI 1 and TLM. I second that.

  Or alternatively, we can
>reserve transaction for something defined by the user, VIP
>implementor, application, e.g.:
>
>  Message: Unit of data transferred in a single DPI call,
>    SCE-MI 1 Send(), SCE-MI 1 receive callback
[Shabtay] This is nice and consistent.
>
>  Element: Same definition as yours
[Shabtay] Here we have the liberty to name it as we wish as this is
SCE-MI 2.0 specific.
>
>  Frame: A series of messages with the last message marked
>    EOM (which should then be named End Of Frame, perhaps).
[Shabtay] I'd like to see this EOT meaning end of transaction. The term
frame has different connotation in networking and if we start using
frames we may find ourselves using the terms such as packet.  Sometime
the transaction can be a frame and sometimes it can be a packet.
Transaction can also be a message, but only as a private case.

I'd keep our terms generic and independent of specific industry
protocols.  
>
>  Transaction: Exact definition depends on the transactor,
>    i.e., it is up to the transactor designer/implementor
>    to define how transactions are delineated.
>
>Per
>
>--
>Per Bojsen                                Email: <bojsen@zaiqtech.com>
>Zaiq Technologies, Inc.                   WWW:
http://www.zaiqtech.com
>78 Dragon Ct.                             Tel:   781 721 8229
>Woburn, MA 01801                          Fax:   781 932 7488
>