[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Jerry Sobieski]

Could we have a Skype call to dscuss this...I am not following the whole 
proposal here - proabably because I am not clear on the NML 
constructs...  We need some examples.

I am available this afternoon (EST) after the NSI call.

Thanks
Jerry

On 2/15/12 6:31 AM, Roman Łapacz wrote:
> W dniu 2012-02-15 11:47, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 14 Feb 2012, at 14:30, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>>
>>> - I've created a new namespace nml-nsi which groups NSI elements. 
>>> This allows to avoid using type attribute to indicate that, for 
>>> example, the network element represents the NS network.
>> Seems sensible to me.
>>
>>> - I had a problem with the STP element because in general I didn't 
>>> want to introduce new names if it's not really needed. Finally, I 
>>> found out (correct me if I'm wrong) that we can treat it as a port, 
>>> but specific one and belonging to NSI namespace. This may be new to 
>>> the NSI team but I hope it's only a matter of terminology and does 
>>> not violate some basic functionality definitions.
>> I think that that is correct. An STP is a specialized form of a Port, 
>> one that is used to define the boundary between an intra-domain 
>> network service and some other service. This can be an inter-domain 
>> network service, or something like a PerfSonar server.
>>
>>> An example I'm sending contains only the topology description of 
>>> PIONIER (I didn't want to waste too much time for mapping all 
>>> domains included in the owl file). I propose to focus on examples 
>>> and later prepare the schema file (xsd or rnc; or both). This 
>>> approach may speed up our work.
>> I agree. Most domains are roughly equal in setup, and certainly equal 
>> in constructs. Doing this for one domain is fine.
>>
>> On to the comments for your description:
>>
>> - You're using<nml:relation type="next">  to describe connections, 
>> this should be<nml:relation type="connectedTo">.
>
> I proposed "next" because it was already used in the framework for 
> circuit monitoring. I'm hesitating to introduce an other name which 
> means the same (1. as I wrote I try to limit new names; 2. use of new 
> name would be incompatible or inconsistent with that solution for 
> circuit monitoring).  On the other hand, "connectedTo" is already used 
> by NSI so I understand that some continuation is welcome. If you think 
> that it's really important to keep "connectedTo" then I'm fine.
>
>> - We don't have an nml:contact object at the moment, but it seems 
>> that we may indeed need one. However, defining the contact methods 
>> should perhaps be done using some other appropriate (standard) schema.
>
> I'll try to find something. Any suggestions are welcome.
>
> Roman
>
>> Jeroen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg