Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options for LFB-level multicast]

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Wed, 10 November 2004 03:46 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 WAA17912 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:46:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRjRj-0006jR-ER for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:47:02 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRjNu-0002St-NV; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:43:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRjJK-00026p-7I for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:38:18 -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 WAA17303 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:38:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRjK2-0006Zg-Ld for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:39:13 -0500
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 58110.341813895; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:59:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000106890@mail.gsu.cn>; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:35:00 +0800
Message-ID: <142a01c4c6d6$13569980$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: "Robert Haas" <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <4189F776.4080306@zurich.ibm.com> <1099700691.1038.2.camel@jzny.localdomain> <005101c4c408$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> <132001c4c551$86023150$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <1099911200.2169.29.camel@jzny.localdomain> <134f01c4c585$216584c0$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <4191299F.4020809@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options for LFB-level multicast]
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:33:41 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 3.6 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: 848ed35f2a4fc0638fa89629cb640f48
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>, hadi@znyx.com, David.Putzolu@intel.com, Dong Ligang <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1987920492=="
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++)
X-Scan-Signature: f2984bf50fb52a9e56055f779793d783

Hi Robert,

Thank you very much to bring the slides to the meeting. 

 ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Robert Haas 
  Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Forces-protocol] Presentation of the options for LFB-level multicast]


  All,
  I presented Weiming's slides just after Jamal's presentation yesterday. No divergence of views on the principle of how to describe paths was found.

  Whereas, according to his slides, Weiming considers that the distinction of Attribute, field, and index, must be reflected in the path notation, the consensus in the room was that this is not necessary: a path could be x.y.z, where it is clear that x must be an attribute, and y and z can be field or index. No need to mention it explicitely in the path notation.
  [Weiming] Actually this is not the key point. While I'm just a little afraid it may lead to ambiguity if , e.g., z can be a field ID or a subscript without tag to indicate it.  

  The path can be constructed with index-search or content-search. The consensus in the room was that the path should include the whole thing, not only the first attribute, as opposed to Weiming's suggestion on the last slide.
  [Weiming]This is really the key point. We need to verify if it is possible for a single 'path'  format to describe all need for path. I just think that, apart from the attribute ID part, others are tightly combined with Data. We may feel difficulty to try to separate path explicitly.  

  Content-search remains to be defined more precisely, as well as block access. So it is too early to disagree ;-)

  Regards,
  -Robert

  Thank you again.
  Weiming

  Wang,Weiming wrote:

Jamal,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>

  
On Mon, 2004-11-08 at 00:12, Wang,Weiming wrote:
    
Jamal,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
To: "Weiming Wang" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>

      
I still dont see what where we have differences. If Robert can see that
difference i think it would be worth presenting it.
        
Sorry, but I don't think it's very proper for you to try to stop an
      
individual
  
presentation :)
      
The first step is to understand what you are trying to show.
Look at how many emails it took for you to say "i see the difference".
    
Sorry, I know the difference very well, just can not see why you cannot catch
it. That's just the 'i see the difference' mean.

Cheers,
Weiming

  
So i am not trying to stop your presentation rather trying to understand
what you are saying. Let me go back and read your other email now.

cheers,
jamal

PS:- Everyone i have talked to here upto before i went to bed did not
see any difference. This includes Robert.

    




  


-- 
Robert Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone +41-1-724-8698  fax +41-1-724-8578  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha

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