[Nmc-wg] Merge Chaining Examples - LAST CALL

[Jeff W. Boote]

Right, and that is not in the protocol. Does anyone have an issue with  
not allowing merge-chaining in protocol messages?

thanks,
jeff

On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:30 AM, romradz at man.poznan.pl wrote:

>
> 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