Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Tue, 26 October 2004 04:11 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 AAA09537 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMIu9-0001FK-BE for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:25:53 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CMIgG-0007h5-KA; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:11:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CMIbB-0006BI-6D for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:06:17 -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 AAA08924 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMImW-000120-HR for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:20:19 -0400
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 99432.341813895; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:23:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000089918@mail.gsu.cn>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:59:18 +0800
Message-ID: <055f01c4bb10$74623300$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: <hadi@znyx.com>, "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@megisto.com>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <C4CB0B3C-251F-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <1098562959.1096.80.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1098564534.1098.106.camel@jzny.localdomain> <130801c4b9c3$ac205d60$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <1098623794.1255.145.camel@jzny.localdomain> <007001c4ba44$fc908a50$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <1098678563.1097.319.camel@jzny.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20041025234709.022f37b8@mail.megisto.com>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:01:21 +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: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
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
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: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jhalpern@megisto.com>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4


> Remember that there may be structures inside structures, or arrays inside
> structures inside arrays inside structures, ...
>
> Hence, a path is a sequence of identifiers,
I suppose you are proposing the 'path' is variable in length, which  I think may
be not the original idea of a path as a 32 bit index for table only.
If it is, i think the idea mathces more to what I proposed. Definitely, I think
the first ID appearing in the sequence is the attribute ID.

>each of which is either a
> subscript or an element identifier within the containing scope (initially
> the LFB classs definition, then progressive the structures selected by the
> earlier path elements.
> For simplicity, I suggest we make all the identifiers 32 bits.
I have no doubt to agree with this. Just need to calrify that a path is more
than 32 bits long, or there will be not enough bits.

Thank you.
Weiming

>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> At 11:17 AM 10/26/2004 +0800, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> > > To point to first entry of datatable: 6,1
> >[Weiming]I'm glad to see this. It also means you'v agreed that the 'path'
> >includes one subsection  which is for attribute ID, right? Now the problem
is,
> >how many bits are you going to use for such ID, 8 bits or 16bits? I
> >suppose you
> >will not use a variable size for this ID. Whether the ID length is variable
or
> >not, we  then can both reasonably think the 'path' as composed of follows:
> >                 Path : = AttributeID  Index
> >  that really matches my idea. I also think  it mathces your idea too as
> >presented in your example here as 6.1, 6.2.3, etc.
> >
> >To summarize, what I proposed actually include two thoughts:
> >a) Attribute ID is necessary;
> >b) the attribute ID should appear in the protocol layer. The followed
> >Index can
> >be included in Data field, becaue not all attributes need Index (they may
only
> >have one entry).
>



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