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

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Thu, 11 November 2004 03:51 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10089 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CS61B-0007M5-OS for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:53:06 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CS5pe-0008QV-8b; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:41:10 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CS5n3-0007fK-7p for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:38:34 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08788 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:38:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CS5nw-00074e-Nt for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:39:33 -0500
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 58110.341813895; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:01:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000108369@mail.gsu.cn>; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:36:33 +0800
Message-ID: <14fc01c4c79f$75231f20$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: <hadi@znyx.com>
References: <4189F776.4080306@zurich.ibm.com> <1099700691.1038.2.camel@jzny.localdomain> <005101c4c408$dc341600$020aa8c0@wwm1> <1099752095.1037.11.camel@jzny.localdomain> <003201c4c46d$1bbce4a0$020aa8c0@wwm1><004201c4c4ec$61d34c20$020aa8c0@wwm1> <1099829057.2165.18.camel@jzny.localdomain> <00bd01c4c536$fb418ee0$020aa8c0@wwm1> <1099885892.2167.13.camel@jzny.localdomain> <132001c4c551$86023150$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <1099911200.2169.29.camel@jzny.localdomain> <134f01c4c585$216584c0$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <4191299F.4020809@zurich.ibm.com> <142a01c4c6d6$13569980$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <1100100893.2210.24.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options forLFB-level multicast]
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:35:14 +0800
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ee80a2074afbfe28d15369f4e74e579d
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, "\(Ram Gopal \)" <ram.gopal@nokia.com>, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, joel@STEVECROCKER.COM, Patrick Droz <dro@zurich.ibm.com>, David.Putzolu@intel.com, Dong Ligang <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: forces-protocol <forces-protocol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/forces-protocol>
List-Post: <mailto:forces-protocol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2a76bcd37b1c8a21336eb0a1ea6bbf48

Hi Jamal,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@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.
In some way, you may call it a thought of relative path. My view is actually
from following thought:
1. A single path is not enough for an operation. In some cases, we may need to
assign several paths for an single operation, e.g.,   we may at the same time
need to set value to 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 where 3 and 4 are field IDs for the same
table. We may also possibly need to set 1.1 in the same operation.
2. It's quite unnecessary we may set different Attributes in one single
operation, therefore the AttrID part is always the same.

Based on above, I think that:
1. It may be very complex to have one specific 'path'  in one 'path' format to
express the actual paths like 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 and 1.1 simulteneously , but it
would be much simpler to have Data field to express it, like the data format as:
    subpath(1.2.3) value, subpath(1.2.4) value, subpath(1.1) value
2. for all subpaths, the head AttrID part is the same, and this is also the only
part that are the same.

Therefore, my thought is the AttrID part is defined in the protocol, leaving the
subpath go along with the data.

>
> i.e you say parent-path=1,2,3,4 then everything else is relative to
> that.
The only possible common parent path is the Attribute ID.

> 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.
When we have more than one subpath that should be expressed, you may see the
necessity for this.


Cheers,
Weiming

>
> 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@znyx.com>
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > > On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 00:12, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> >         > >
> >         > > > Jamal,
> >         > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >         > > > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
> >         > > > To: "Weiming Wang" <wmwang@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@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol
>
>



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