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

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Sun, 24 October 2004 13:12 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 JAA26410 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:12:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLiO4-0005rw-FI for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:26:20 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLi9n-0001q7-W4; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:11:36 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLi5h-0001IH-Kv for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:07:22 -0400
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 JAA26177 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from znx208-2-156-007.znyx.com ([208.2.156.7] helo=lotus.znyx.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLiIw-0005nh-QE for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:21:03 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([208.2.156.2]) by lotus.znyx.com (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 <hadi@znyx.com>
To: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
In-Reply-To: <122b01c4b9be$50fa1cf0$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1> <417AA8B6.1040601@zurich.ibm.com> <1098558745.1097.42.camel@jzny.localdomain> <122b01c4b9be$50fa1cf0$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
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" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, avri@psg.com, Ligang Dong <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
Reply-To: hadi@znyx.com
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: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Weiming,

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" <hadi@znyx.com>
> 
> >
> > 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
table.
Is the above still under discussion? Thats not the impression i have.

cheers,
jamal




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