Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs attribute)

Jamal Hadi Salim <> Sun, 24 October 2004 13:12 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26410 for <>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLiO4-0005rw-FI for; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:26:20 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLi9n-0001q7-W4; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:11:36 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLi5h-0001IH-Kv for; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:07:22 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26177 for <>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLiIw-0005nh-QE for; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:21:03 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102406094323:39635 ; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 06:09:43 -0700
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: querry message (path vs attribute)
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <>
To: "Wang,Weiming" <>
In-Reply-To: <122b01c4b9be$50fa1cf0$>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <> <> <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1> <> <1098558745.1097.42.camel@jzny.localdomain> <122b01c4b9be$50fa1cf0$>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1098623230.1255.136.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: 24 Oct 2004 09:07:10 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/24/2004 06:09:43 AM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/24/2004 06:09:51 AM, Serialize complete at 10/24/2004 06:09:51 AM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <>,,,, Ligang Dong <>, Robert Haas <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: forces-protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 07:40, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> Jamal,
> Firstly, I think it may be unwise to remove some editorial note when the isuuse
> is still under discussion. I can clearly see many different opinions regarding
> the issue. Then, some of my thougt on adding such an editorial note as below.

Is the concept of path still under discussion Weiming? Thats not my
impression. And if not, why does it matter if the path is constructed
from a single attribute or via table of table7 index 3 which is table8 ?

> Regards,
> Weiming
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <>
> >
> > I think we need to add a definition for attribute.
> > As far as iam concerned there is no such thing as a "attribute ID".
> [Weiming] Then, I just can not see how we can recognize different attributes in
> a LFB. Note that a 'Path' is a ID that is used and defined by USERS rather than
> standadized by IETF, therefore it's impossible to recoganize different
> attributes by 'path', and more, if the attribute ID is defined by USERS, there
> will be no interoperability. What I see the 'Attribute ID' is a standardized by
> IANA Identifier that is assigned to different attributes in all LFBs.

The attribute IDs are defined by the person(s) who create the XML.
The document/ClassID - that i can see as being owned by IANA.

> > What you specify is a path similar to an OID. Whether that path
> > happens to be on an attribute, a table, an entry is not important
> I see it may be important, the reason is as above.
> > because that wuill be the lement you are pointing to.
> > so lets remove this from the query section
> [Weiming]I'v already put the 'path' as main select and the 'attribute ID/table
> ID' as a select for discussion. I don't have any intention to deny the 'path'.
> Therefore, I don't think it's reasonable currently to remove the note.

I think we need to define how a path is selected once; then use the word
path everywhere. I dont think that it matters if theres a table involved
or not. Neither if its a single attribute that has nothing to do with a
Is the above still under discussion? Thats not the impression i have.


Forces-protocol mailing list