[Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com> Mon, 25 October 2004 01:19 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15766 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLtjl-0000yc-Ds for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:33:29 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLtVZ-0000hg-7K; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:18:49 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLtS0-0000P8-Id for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:15:08 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15508 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:15:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from znx208-2-156-007.znyx.com ([] helo=lotus.znyx.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLtfM-0000tz-43 for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:28:56 -0400
Received: from [] ([]) by lotus.znyx.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2004102418173293:39991 ; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:17:32 -0700
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
To: avri@psg.com
In-Reply-To: <F8BFA8B3-2604-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1> <417AA8B6.1040601@zurich.ibm.com> <1098558745.1097.42.camel@jzny.localdomain> <CE5A3946-252D-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <128f01c4b9c0$fe9df280$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <0F5DC2E6-25DB-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <1098639759.1096.258.camel@jzny.localdomain> <F8BFA8B3-2604-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com>
Organization: ZNYX Networks
Message-Id: <1098666900.1096.267.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2
Date: 24 Oct 2004 21:15:00 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/24/2004 06:17:33 PM, Serialize by Router on Lotus/Znyx(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 10/24/2004 06:17:38 PM, Serialize complete at 10/24/2004 06:17:38 PM
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, "Wang, Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5
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: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 17:37, avri@psg.com wrote:
> On 24 okt 2004, at 13.42, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> >
> > I think people may be confused if you are actually following the
> > discussion (since you are unusually quiet) hence the comments you may
> > have seen.
> for the most part i was fine with the conclusions folks were coming up 
> with.  in my attempt to reman as impartial in this group as possible, i 
> only get vocal when things really concern me.  in many cases, i saw a 
> lot of the disagreements as of the 6 of 1 and a 1.2 dozen of the other 
> variety, with either option being workable.  in those cases where i 
> thought it mattered, things went in a direction i was comfortable with, 
> so why say "me too".


> >
> > The path issue has been resolved; i think we may be just talking past
> > each other. The issue thats still open is the data packing.
> can someone offer a note that expresses the still open conflict that 
> all parties can agree with? the one i put back does not really express 
> the still open issue as far as i can tell.

In response to Weiming, I posted some text describing the path concept
but i am not sure where best that goes.
A path defines how to get to data being accessed; how that data gets
shipped around is still a question mark. There has been a proposal from
Steve/Zsolt which is insufficient to cover all known scenarios.
I think this needs to be discussed seriously in the meeting.

> >
> > The WG should see the draft after we are done i think. I wouldnt say we
> > are.
> i tend to disagree with this.  now that this is a WG document, and the 
> WG is the owner of the doc, i believe they should have more frequent 
> snapshots and should be brought into the discussions.
> but i defer to the team and the chairs on this issue.

It is my opinion that sometimes it is easier to make progress with a
smaller team. I actually dont think Weiming and I are disagreeing with
each other for example; i just think we may be talking past each other.
It is clear that the issue of data packing is still open. I still wanna
hear from Weiming if he thinks the path issue is open - in which case we
would need to involve more people.  

> except that i am not seeing any edits from anyone.
> 15 hours to go, and i plan to sleep some of them if at all possible.
> i am currently working on a 00 - 01 change list appendix. which will 
> show up in 01-7.

I think you should submit by 8am Eastern whatever verion you have then.


Forces-protocol mailing list