Subject: [issue29] Path attribute ID

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 18:26:33 +0000

New submission from Avri Doria <[email-masked]>:

6.6.1

   Path(or Attribute ID?):
       [Under discussion and TBD]

       Editorial Note:  There is a debate on whether we should use a
                        'Path' or simply an 'Attribute ID' or a 'Table
                        ID' here at the protocol layer.  A Path is used
                        for data indexing for a table, while an
                        'Attribute ID' or a 'Table ID' only specify
                        which attribute or table to use, leaving table
                        index to be included in followed data.

----------
category: Technical
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 46
nosy: avri
priority: Must fix
status: No discussion
title: Path attribute ID

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue29>
___________________________________________________

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 02:11:37 -0400

I am not sure I understand the question as phrased.

The current model plan is that targetting of operations (get, set, delete, 
...) will use an LFB Class ID, an LFB Instance ID, and then one or more 
paths (with sub-paths).  A path consists of a sequence of identifiers so 
that one can refer to an entire array within the LFB, an entry in an array, 
or even a field in a structucture which is an element of an array within a 
structure in the LFB.  (Many LFBs will have shallow structure.  Some will 
have more complex structure.  And a few will get VERY messy.  I would hate 
to try to assign IDs from a single flat space to everything that might be 
referenced.  (Yes, the ID space is big enough.  But structure is our friend 
in making this implementable, robust, and debuggable.)

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Weiming Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:46:24 +0800

Avri,

I'm not sure if you'v used the latest 02 version of the draft for the issue trackers. I think this edtorial note has already been removed and not existed in the 02 version. The issue has already been solved.

Yours,
Weiming

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:55:22 +0200

Hi,

You are right.  I accidentally used a 'pre-released' version of -02 i 
had in my directory.  I will close this one.

I have also gone through a diff of the file i used and the latest -02 
and while I didn't find any other issues that were already closed, i 
did find a few other issues that need to be added,  which I will do 
shortly.

Thanks for the catch.

a.

ps. this is the hardest list to send to.  i always need several tries 
before i get it from the right address and then remember to verify that 
i really wanted to send.

also, i am still working my way through the doc removing all the notes. 
  I intended to get a new version submitted last week, but am still 
working on it.

On 19 maj 2005, at 16.46, Weiming Wang wrote:

> Avri,
>
> I'm not sure if you'v used the latest 02 version of the draft for the 
> issue trackers. I think this edtorial note has already been removed 
> and not existed in the 02 version. The issue has already been solved.
>
> Yours,
> Weiming
>