Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: Conference Call this Week ?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi@znyx.com>
> > Subject: [Forces-protocol] Re: Conference Call this Week ?
> >
> >
> > > Hormuzd,
> > > I will be there.
> > > An agenda would be nice to have. Lets start with section 6 ;->
> > > Weiming I hope you can make this!
> > I'm very busy from the day before yesterday, till nov. 29, to meet a
deadline of
> > a long report, but I'l still try to atend the meeting. One thing I have to
> > mention is, I think we should still rely more on the list for consencus
rather
> > than conference. Obviously, I have some difficulty to catch all, and even
worse
> > is the phone voice is rather week.
>
> The one issue i would like to clarify with you is that of the path.
> After my previous posting(s) - does it make sense? Do we have a
> disagreement? etc. I think in my list this is the biggest unresolved
> issue.
[Weiming]Jamal, pls see my another post to see the difference between us on the
idea of path. I think the path as you use is composed of two part: the attribute
ID and the Index for table. The former will appear in the protocol definition,
while the latter will only appear in the Data definition, and is OPTIONAL,
because not all attributes are tables. That's all what I want express.

In the current scheme of 'path-data' mode, If the path is specifically for the
attributeID, then I will say I agree current scheme.

Thanks.
weiming
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>

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