[Nmc-wg] Merge Chaining Examples - LAST CALL

[Roman Lapacz]

Hi Michael,

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Michael Bischoff wrote:

> As we are on the clarifing train: with removing merge chaining are we considering removing simply the merging bit or chaining as a whole?

Functional chaining stays.

Roman

> 
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Jeff W.Boote <boote at internet2.edu> wrote:
>
>       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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nmc-wg mailing list
> Nmc-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
> 
> 
> 
>