[Nmc-wg] Merge Chaining Examples - LAST CALL

[Roman Lapacz]

Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but in 
fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures will be 
used in messages defined by NMC.

Roman


// Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland
// phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:

> To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked
> about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its
> removal.
> Cheers,
> Aaron
> 
> On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
> 
>
>       I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on
>       NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there
>       for your opinions I asked ealier.
>
>       Roman
> 
> 
>
>       On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
>
>             All;
> 
>
>             On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
>
>             do not need to be in the NMC document.  They will continue to be
>
>             described in NM however.  If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
> 
>
>             Thanks;
> 
>
>             -jason
> 
>
>             On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
>
>                   Hi Roman;
> 
>
>                   I agree.  I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
> 
>
>                   -jason
> 
>
>                   On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
> 
>
>                         Hi Jason&  all,
> 
>
>                         I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
>
>                         that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
>
>                         after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
>
>                         might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
>
>                         presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
>
>                         remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
> 
>
>                         Roman
>
>             _______________________________________________
>
>             Nmc-wg mailing list
>
>             Nmc-wg at ogf.org
>
>             http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
> 
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       Nmc-wg mailing list
>       Nmc-wg at ogf.org
>       http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
> 
> 
> Internet2 Spring Member Meeting
> April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia
> http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
> 
> 
>