Re: [nm-wg] immediate future of current schemas

[Tanya Brethour <brethour@ncsa.uiuc.edu>]

> 4. Discuss the inclusion of a field for transaction IDs in both the request
> and existing publication
> schema [1], to allow better tracking of interactions (ties in wirh whether
> we want stateful or stateless batching of results).

I think including any state into the schema is a bad idea. I believe the
discussion behind this was so that in the case where results are not
immediately available.. the requester gets and ID that is then used later
to retrieve the results. 

What is wrong with the response just saying "come back later" and the
requester is responsible for coming back and retrieving the results (using
same request as before, but by the time it comes back the tests will have
finished)? That way you don't have to worry about IDs being unique or
storing the request.

Maybe there is something I am missing that makes an ID necessary.

I also have a few things to add to the list:

- HopList: we need to figure out how we want to represent this

- AvailableBandwidth: Right now.. I don't see anything in the schema that
actually stores the available bandwidth value.

- There is an error in the current schema that still has not gotten fixed.
'Host' is never used.

- Lastly, if Dan and Martin are busy with the new schema, we really need
to get the current response schema (and request) in a cvs like system with
access to some other people within the NMWG.. so that the changes can be
made and the website is updated. 

Thanks,
Tanya