Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options for LFB-level multicast]

[Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi at znyx.com>]

Hi Weiming,

I am not sure if this is what you are saying all along, but i think it
may be valuable to have "relative" path encoding.

i.e you say parent-path=1,2,3,4 then everything else is relative to
that.
Example if you say 5 afterwards for relative path, then the full path
is: 1,2,3,4,5.

I still dont think that "5" should be in the data portion though.

cheers,
jamal

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 22:33, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>  
> Thank you very much to bring the slides to the meeting. 
>  
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>         From: Robert Haas
>         Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the
>         options for LFB-level multicast]
>         
>         All,
>         I presented Weiming's slides just after Jamal's presentation
>         yesterday. No divergence of views on the principle of how to
>         describe paths was found.
>         
>         Whereas, according to his slides, Weiming considers that the
>         distinction of Attribute, field, and index, must be reflected
>         in the path notation, the consensus in the room was that this
>         is not necessary: a path could be x.y.z, where it is clear
>         that x must be an attribute, and y and z can be field or
>         index. No need to mention it explicitely in the path notation.
>         [Weiming] Actually this is not the key point. While I'm just a
>         little afraid it may lead to ambiguity if , e.g., z can be a
>         field ID or a subscript without tag to indicate it.  
>         The path can be constructed with index-search or
>         content-search. The consensus in the room was that the path
>         should include the whole thing, not only the first attribute,
>         as opposed to Weiming's suggestion on the last slide.
>         [Weiming]This is really the key point. We need to verify if it
>         is possible for a single 'path'  format to describe all need
>         for path. I just think that, apart from the attribute ID part,
>         others are tightly combined with Data. We may feel difficulty
>         to try to separate path explicitly.  
>         Content-search remains to be defined more precisely, as well
>         as block access. So it is too early to disagree ;-)
>         
>         Regards,
>         -Robert
>         
>         Thank you again.
>         Weiming
>         Wang,Weiming wrote:
>         
>         > Jamal,
>         > 
>         > ----- Original Message -----
>         > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi at znyx.com>
>         > 
>         >   
>         > > On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 00:12, Wang,Weiming wrote:
>         > >     
>         > > > Jamal,
>         > > > ----- Original Message -----
>         > > > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi at znyx.com>
>         > > > To: "Weiming Wang" <wmwang at mail.hzic.edu.cn>
>         > > > 
>         > > >       
>         > > > > I still dont see what where we have differences. If Robert can see that
>         > > > > difference i think it would be worth presenting it.
>         > > > >         
>         > > > 
>         > > > Sorry, but I don't think it's very proper for you to try to stop an
>         > > >       
>         > 
>         > individual
>         >   
>         > > > presentation :)
>         > > >       
>         > > 
>         > > The first step is to understand what you are trying to show.
>         > > Look at how many emails it took for you to say "i see the difference".
>         > >     
>         > 
>         > Sorry, I know the difference very well, just can not see why you cannot catch
>         > it. That's just the 'i see the difference' mean.
>         > 
>         > Cheers,
>         > Weiming
>         > 
>         >   
>         > > So i am not trying to stop your presentation rather trying to understand
>         > > what you are saying. Let me go back and read your other email now.
>         > > 
>         > > cheers,
>         > > jamal
>         > > 
>         > > PS:- Everyone i have talked to here upto before i went to bed did not
>         > > see any difference. This includes Robert.
>         > > 
>         > >     
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         > 
>         >   
>         
>         
>         -- 
>         Robert Haas
>         IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
>         Säumerstrasse 4
>         CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
>         phone +41-1-724-8698  fax +41-1-724-8578  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Forces-protocol mailing list
> Forces-protocol at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
Forces-protocol at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol