[Nml-wg] Schema changes

[John Vollbrecht]

Could you describe the different views of service and adaptation?  I  
also thought we had lively conversation but hoped that we would come  
out with consensus  in the long run.  Since the meeting I have  
attempted to lay out some use cases that are of interest to NSI at  
least, and almost all of them have adaptation as part of the case.   
This has changed my thinking some, in that it seems to me now  
adaptations are part of network topology, not just services.  In  
particular, just as nodes and network groups might have ports, they  
might also have adaptations.

The peculiar thing about adaptations as opposed to other services (it  
seems to me) is that they are required to stitch together a connection  
consisting of segments from different services.

My preference for this would be to try to work it out before dropping  
it.  It seems important to have it - at least adaptations - for  
defining network topology that can be used to create ete circuits.

John

On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We have certainly had a lively discussion again at this OGF, and it is
> now clear that we do not have consensus regarding the service and
> adaptation elements.
> Would it be an idea to leave service and adaptation out of the schema
> for now and try to make a first standard out of the rest? That is what
> we originally had in mind for the first deliverable anyway.
>
> Jeroen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg