[Nmc-wg] Merge Chaining Examples - LAST CALL

[romradz at man.poznan.pl]

So I see that the only usage for merge chaining is store metadata file 
(for example store metada file of MA)

Roman


On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Jeff W. Boote 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