See also: IRC log
Present: Umit, dbooth, Amy
Regrets:
Chair: dbooth
Scribe: Umit
dbooth: On our last call, Amy said she would come up with variations of P2 family. It is pending.
umit: P2 and P3 appear identical diagramatically.
dbooth: there is additional constraint, the channel shared.
umit: p2e looks like a subset of p3, as well as p2.
dbooth: p2e does not have the restriction to be on the same channel. for example, the reply may be sent on a different channel, e.g. the request comes with http and the reply is via email.
amy: We need to discuss what distinguishes patterns.
dbooth: not all constraints are in the notation, additional constraints are in the prose.
umit: we should remove p3. The channel sharing should be a separate variable that can be changed. In this manner, p3 is eliminated as channel sharing may apply to other patterns, not only p2.
dbooth: will add definition in the beginning of the document.
dbooth: The pseudo code case 1 assumes p2e. The pseudo code case 2 assumes p2.
... the pseudo code in 2 will not work. There is no guarantee that the client will receive anything.
amy: byitself a code generating program can not be written based on the current definitions.
umit: p2 is not enough to describe request/response by itself.
amy: we need to specify the variables that are most useful, not contrasting p2 wrt p2e.
dbooth: we can only analyse specific patterns and discuss their usefulness.
umit: the discussion goes on how to proceed. Amy to send her analysis.
Scribe: meeting adjourns.
<dbooth> ACTION: dbooth to add another variable to the document: "Whether or not communication is required to be on the same channel"
... ACTION: Amy to propose additional patterns for the P2 family based on her analysis of the different variables. (From 11-June-2003) -- PENDING