[nm-wg] Current Schema changes?

[Leese, MJ (Mark)]

Hey Tanya,

Thanks for your email. Hope things are good.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nm-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-nm-wg at ggf.org]On 
> Behalf Of Tanya Brethour
> Sent: 15 December 2004 19:52
> To: nm-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: [nm-wg] Current Schema changes?
> 
> Hi. Sorry I missed the call last week, but I had a prior appointment.
> 
No problem.


> First, are there minutes from the call anywhere online? I 
> have checked the
> email archive and I don't think they were sent to the list.
> 
They haven't been sent out yet. It's my weekend job. However, we really only discussed the new schema work and the next face-to-face meeting, not the existing schemas.


> Second, I still have not heard anything about the issues regarding the
> current response schema and "finishing it". In previous 
> emails I sent out
> a list of items that need to be corrected, but this always 
> seemed to get
> skipped or not put on the agenda. 
> 
Can you please remind me what these issues are? Is it....

* Figuring out how to represent a hopList.
* It looking like there's nothing in the request schema to store AvailableBandwidth.
* "Host" never being used in the response schema.
* Getting the schemas into CVS, and giving a wider group of people access.

If so, then Paul and I are looking at them, and I did give some initial feedback in a mail on Oct 22nd. Paul and I have actually arranged to work more on this tomorrow, including responding to some feedback from a recent European (EGEE) use of the schemas. I can hopefully report on this during the next call (next Tuesday, the 21st).

As a general point, if anyone thinks something is being skipped or not covered at all, then please let me know and I can make sure it gets its fair share of time! I'm good, just not at reading minds ;-)


> Lastly, I've been reviewing the developers guide sent out, and I was
> wondering if Martin or Dan could just summarize the benefits of this
> schema over the current one. I just want to make sure I 
> understand why we
> are headed in this direction.
> 
Not my bag baby ;-) Over to Martin and Dan....