[Nml-wg] Possibility of changes (was Re: Interface vs Port)

[Jeroen van der Ham]

Hello,

On 30 Aug 2011, at 17:58, Jason Zurawski wrote:
> Regarding plugfest, your statement surprises me.  This is an opportunity to show the work being produced by the NML working group as an interoperable and legitimate way to describe network topology.  Using something different, with no real ties to the working group, means that what is being produced really is "demo" code that will need to be 'changed' when the final standard is produced.  This seems like a bit mistake, and a loss for the WG in my opinion.
> 

The reason that I am not using the NML namespace is because we're using a really simplified topology for the NSI plugfest. In the first instance there was even a suggestion to create some kind of NSI topology to use in the NSI demo that looked nothing like an NML topology.

I've coaxed the participants to start using a simple kind of topology now, in the future we can start using NML more.

One thing already came up, even with a simplified topology: NML misses the concept of labels. It has become apparent to me that an endpoint for a provisioned connection is not only a Port object, it is also the label that is associated with it, at that Port.
Providers often also need to negotiate using a label on a connection.

Jeroen.