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

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:50:20 -0700

Hi Team,

I would propose we have a conference call this week to close on some of
the outstanding issues.
I think this is a good time since most of the issues are fresh in our
minds and not all of us will be able to make it to the IETF meeting. For
one, I will be unable to attend, so will Ram and Weiming I believe. Once
we resolve these issues, we can submit another draft update by early
next week.

Let me know what day/time works for you. I would suggest Wed, Thu, or
Friday early morning call my time i.e. 8 AM PST, but I will be happy to
accommodate your times so that we can get everyone. 

Pls let us know soon ?

Regards
Hormuzd

_______________________________________________
Forces-protocol mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0400

> I would propose we have a conference call this week to close on some of

I agree a conference call is a good idea.  unfortunately i cannot make 
it this week, except for Tuesday and Wednesday morning,  as I will be 
traveling on Wednesday afternoon and Friday all day and presenting etc 
on Thursday.

> one, I will be unable to attend, so will Ram and Weiming I believe.

sad so few can attend

> Once

While we can put one up on a web site, we can't actually submit another 
draft until after the IETF meeting.

> accommodate your times so that we can get everyone.

i can make Wednesday am, the earlier the better.  i have to leave for 
the airport around noon eastern time.

a.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:06:59 +0200

Yes, good idea. I am available Wednesday between 9am and 12am PST or 
Thursday between 1pm and 2pm PST.
-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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Oct 2004 21:19:07 -0400

Hormuzd,
I will be there.
An agenda would be nice to have. Lets start with section 6 ;->
Weiming I hope you can make this!

cheers,
jamal

---

From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:23:21 +0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Re: Conference Call this Week ?

> 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.

Thank you.
Weiming

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Oct 2004 22:39:42 -0400

> 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.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:49:54 +0800

Jamal, that is also exactly what I want to discuss with you further. I'l
response your earlier email very soon.

cheers,
weiming

---

From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:34:52 +0800

----- Original Message -----
> disagreement? etc. I think in my list this is the biggest unresolved
[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

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: 26 Oct 2004 07:02:11 -0400

> attributeID, then I will say I agree current scheme.

Yes, it is (if yopu want to call a table index also an attribute ID).
Look at my other posting. Note as well that how data is packed is still
under discussion and undecided. Theres a scheme posted by Zsolt which
tries to pack the way Java would serialize for example which has so far
proven insufficient. So please look at that and contribute to the
discussion.

cheers,
jamal