[Nmc-wg] Merge Chaining Examples - LAST CALL

[Jeff W.Boote]

On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:

>
> 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.


Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should  
specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG  
schema that does NOT use merge chaining.

jeff

>
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> Nmc-wg mailing list
> Nmc-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg