Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation oftheoptionsforLFB-levelmulticast]

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Mon, 08 November 2004 04:52 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 XAA04984 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:52:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CR1Wq-0005ir-MI for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:53:20 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CR1VS-0007Aj-6K; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:51:54 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CR1Uh-00070n-2T for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:51:07 -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 XAA04923 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:51:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CR1V3-0005ge-D9 for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:51:36 -0500
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 58110.341813895; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:13:45 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000104453@mail.gsu.cn>; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:53:46 +0800
Message-ID: <130001c4c54e$28fb5f20$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: <hadi@znyx.com>
References: <4189F776.4080306@zurich.ibm.com><1099700691.1038.2.camel@jzny.localdomain><005101c4c408$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>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation oftheoptionsforLFB-levelmulticast]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:48:15 +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: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
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: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793

Hi Jamal,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
> Weiming, Isnt this f2 the same as #2 that i assumed above when i said
> "Assuming table refered by AttrID2 has ID=2 and f2 has ID=2 "?
> Maybe you are refering to a mixture of content and Ids?
>
> > > It seems to me that we are both saying that a vector, such as a table
> > > entry will have two or more "coordinates" (table,index) but a scalar
> > > such as what you refer to as AttrID1 will have a single entry.
> > [Weiming]Yes, this is another point I just want to say. By this, I just want
to
> > say that index-based searching is not enough. We have to use field ID
(content)
> > based searching.
> >
>
> Content based access is tabled under discussion in slide 23.
[Weiming]I'v seen the difference. What you refered here as content based
searching actually in my slides still belongs to the index-based path. In your
example of NOP attributes, you only have one level of table, when you put the
second level of table (that is, the Datatable in the NOP LFB you mentioned,
which sub field is another table), you will see that anything is based on what
you mean content based searching (which actually isn't content based).  Pls read
other part of my slides where I think content based searching is quite different
thing, something like:

Path = {AttrID1.f1= = vf1} && {AttrID1.f1.g1 = = vg1}

where you can see the difference is, in this path, there is no index, instead
there are values for terminal nodes. Do you think a path can include values? I
think no, therefore, my opinion is that the path except the attribute ID part
should be inside the 'Data' field.

Anyway, I think what you mean content based searching is different from what I
mean, and you actually still have not mentioned content based searching in your
example.

Actually I have had a private discusion with Joel on content searching. The
slides are actually some topic we discussed, therefore I think it maybe worth to
present it to all others.

Cheers,
Weiming




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