Hey Tanya, Thanks for your email. Hope things are good.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nm-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-nm-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of Tanya Brethour Sent: 15 December 2004 19:52 To: nm-wg@ggf.org Subject: [nm-wg] Current Schema changes?
Hi. Sorry I missed the call last week, but I had a prior appointment.
No problem.
First, are there minutes from the call anywhere online? I have checked the email archive and I don't think they were sent to the list.
They haven't been sent out yet. It's my weekend job. However, we really only discussed the new schema work and the next face-to-face meeting, not the existing schemas.
Second, I still have not heard anything about the issues regarding the current response schema and "finishing it". In previous emails I sent out a list of items that need to be corrected, but this always seemed to get skipped or not put on the agenda.
Can you please remind me what these issues are? Is it.... * Figuring out how to represent a hopList. * It looking like there's nothing in the request schema to store AvailableBandwidth. * "Host" never being used in the response schema. * Getting the schemas into CVS, and giving a wider group of people access. If so, then Paul and I are looking at them, and I did give some initial feedback in a mail on Oct 22nd. Paul and I have actually arranged to work more on this tomorrow, including responding to some feedback from a recent European (EGEE) use of the schemas. I can hopefully report on this during the next call (next Tuesday, the 21st). As a general point, if anyone thinks something is being skipped or not covered at all, then please let me know and I can make sure it gets its fair share of time! I'm good, just not at reading minds ;-)
Lastly, I've been reviewing the developers guide sent out, and I was wondering if Martin or Dan could just summarize the benefits of this schema over the current one. I just want to make sure I understand why we are headed in this direction.
Not my bag baby ;-) Over to Martin and Dan....