[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Roman Łapacz]

Hi,

tomorrow we've got the NML conf call. Can we discuss it then?

Roman

W dniu 2012-02-15 14:08, Jerry Sobieski pisze:
> 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