[Nml-wg] Interface vs Port

[Jason Zurawski]

Hi Jeroen;

On 8/26/11 7:47 AM, thus spake Jeroen van der Ham:
> Hello,
>
> A long time ago we have had a discussion on naming, where we
> finalized on Nodes and Ports. However, due to feedback that I'm
> getting in projects where semantic network descriptions are now
> actually being used, I have received requests to change Port to
> Interface.

Which projects, and when have you interacted with them or when have they 
approached you about this topic?  You note 'requests' so please be 
specific if you could.

> The problem is that in these projects the network descriptions become
> part of a larger infrastructure.

One could say that about just about any project looking to adopt the NML 
work, I don't believe these new groups are much different than anyone 
else in that regard.

> Having an object named Port there to
> describe a network connection point is confusing to users who are not
> network-centric. They think that a Port object would describe
> something like a TCP/UDP port, instead of a whole network interface.

This sounds like a similar argument I can remember from 2007, when the 
founders of NML first got together to try to combine concepts from 
NDL/NM into something cohesive.  My hazy memory seems to remember 
'interface' and 'port' being on the table.  At the time the group went 
with one ('port') since it was silly to endlessly debate on something 
like a name when there were other important things to deal with.

> Would it be possible that NML also changes the Port object to
> Interface, so as to sync up with the schemas that are already in use
> in GENI, Geysers and NOVI?

You note a key problem in this request - "A long time ago we have had a 
discussion on naming".  Lots of water has flowed under the bridge since 
that date, and products/software have latched on to these concepts over 
the span of years.

Speaking selfishly only for things I care about (e.g. perfSONAR products 
and control frameworks such as OSCARS that have adopted 'in progress' 
versions of NML), I am not pleased to hear about this particular request 
given the amount of investment that has been made.  Lots of interactions 
(protocol based and internal software management) have been structured 
around these concepts, and these products are deeply embedded and 
deployed in the infrastructure of many networks.  I don't believe that 
this amount of investment should be forgotten as the group considers 
something as simple as a 'find/replace' in current documents.

I personally would like to know more about these projects, and the 
reasons why they are approaching this working group (and by extension 
projects that have already started to implement NML concepts as is) with 
a request to go through a lot of work to re-introduce an old argument. 
I am all for collaboration, but it is not clear to me what benefits NML 
will receive as a tradeoff with these other projects.

Thanks;

-jason