Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Tue, 26 October 2004 03:22 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 XAA05144 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:22:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMI8h-00006v-EJ for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:36:51 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CMHug-0005kj-EW; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:22:22 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CMHs0-0004w8-Iq for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:19:36 -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 XAA04863 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:19:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMI5U-0008SD-Rt for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:33:38 -0400
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 99432.341813895; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:39:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000089854@mail.gsu.cn>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:15:05 +0800
Message-ID: <053c01c4bb0a$47497500$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: <hadi@znyx.com>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <C4CB0B3C-251F-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <1098562959.1096.80.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1098564534.1098.106.camel@jzny.localdomain> <130801c4b9c3$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>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Feedback: Section 6.4
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 11:17:08 +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: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, jhalpern@megisto.com, avri@psg.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, 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: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
> On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 23:44, Wang,Weiming wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
>
> Lets take an example of noop, since the xml for that is there and its a
> very simple example.
>
> The class NOOP is 5. owned by IANA.
> It has a simple table called datatable whose ID is 6.
>Defined at xml creation.
[Weiming] Let me call this ID an 'attribute ID'. Also in your XML, you'v called
the table an attribute, right?

> 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).

I'm not sure if above helps or not.

Cheers,
Weiming

> to point to foo1 within entry 2 of datatable: 6,2,3
> to point to foo2 of entry 3 of datatable: 6,3,4
>
> I hope this clears it. I have attached two docs i worked on to
> clarify this.
>
> As i said earlier, the path issue is resolved but not the data packing.
> Of course if you disagree we could continue that discussion.
> As you will notice in these docs, the text clearly states that the
> data packing is not resolved.
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>



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