Re: [Roll] terminology

["Julien Abeille (jabeille)" <jabeille at cisco.com>]

Hi all,

I am inline with Philip. Thanks for the precisions by the way. 
Regarding sequence numbers, for me 2 nodes with 2 different seq numbers
are in different DAGs, hence we do not need to compare them as far as
height is concerned.

Best,
Julien

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:jhui at archrock.com] 
> Sent: mardi 3 novembre 2009 20:58
> To: Philip Levis
> Cc: Julien Abeille (jabeille); roll ROLL
> Subject: Re: [Roll] terminology
> 
> 
> On Nov 3, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Philip Levis wrote:
> 
> > This seems like an excellent simplification to me.
> >
> > The one weird thing that occurs is that people often talk 
> about going 
> > "up" the tree as towards the root, which is the opposite of a real 
> > world tree. E.g., depth first search. So I'd suggest we say
> >
> > Up: towards the root, decreasing rank
> > Down: towards the leaves, increasing rank Higher node: lower rank 
> > Lower node: higher rank
> >
> > I think it's important to define higher and lower in terms of Rank 
> > since Rank is what's actually used. Otherwise you get into a weird 
> > situation comparing disjoint subtrees.
> 
> 
> If we want to be precise about the terms, then "sequence 
> number" needs to appear somewhere.  For example, A may be 
> "higher" than B because it has a newer sequence number - 
> which trumps any difference in rank.
> 
> --
> Jonathan Hui
> 
>