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

"Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn> Tue, 26 October 2004 04:46 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 AAA11742 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:46:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMJRZ-0001sY-DW for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 01:00:25 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CMJ6d-0006AR-Ov; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:38:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CMJ5N-0005pF-Vl for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:37:30 -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 AAA11396 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [202.96.99.56] (helo=202.96.99.56) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CMJIj-0001kG-Rw for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:51:32 -0400
Received: from [202.96.99.59] by 202.96.99.56 with StormMail ESMTP id 99432.341813895; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:57:20 +0800 (CST)
Received: from WWM (unverified [202.96.99.60]) by mail.gsu.cn (Rockliffe SMTPRA 6.0.11) with ESMTP id <B0000089955@mail.gsu.cn>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:32:50 +0800
Message-ID: <058f01c4bb15$232c4e30$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
To: <hadi@znyx.com>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E0302DCB8@orsmsx408> <1098753546.1045.31.camel@jzny.localdomain> <04e701c4bb02$c371cb80$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <1098758382.1042.34.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Subject: Re: [Forces-protocol] Re: Conference Call this Week ?
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:34:52 +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: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, avri@psg.com, "Putzolu, David" <david.putzolu@intel.com>, 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: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69

----- 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