[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Jeroen van der Ham]

We can certainly put this on the agenda for the NML call tomorrow.

In the meantime: the current NML schema is still available at https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc15481?nav=1


Jeroen.

On 15 Feb 2012, at 14:08, Jerry Sobieski wrote:

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20120215/2217cf8f/attachment.pgp>