[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Roman Łapacz]

I forgot to remove previous contact structure. Fixed.

Roman

W dniu 2012-02-16 13:00, Roman Łapacz pisze:
> Hi,
>
> an update is attached. Two changes:
> - use of xCard for the contact element (rfc6351)
> - I was thinking a bit about "next" vs "connectedTo" (I wouldn't like 
> to have the situation when we there are different attribute values 
> which mean the same; let's keep the set of xml/nml elements and their 
> attribute values as small as possible). There is a solution which 
> avoid the conflict of existing these two values in the NML world. I 
> propose to use a namespae for type attribute in the relation element. 
> In  the case of  topology for NSI we could have nml-nsi:type which 
> ensures that the value "connectedTo" is known and accepted by 
> application parsers.
>
> Cheers,
> Roman
>
> W dniu 2012-02-15 13:41, Roman Łapacz pisze:
>> W dniu 2012-02-15 13:20, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
>>> On 15 Feb 2012, at 12:31, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>>>>> 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're already saying that an nml-nsi:STP is equivalent to an 
>>> nml:Port with some added behavior. I don't really see any reason why 
>>> connectedTo would not work in this case.
>>
>> Just to clarify, I propose nml-nsi:port, not nml-nsi:STP (port in the 
>> nml-nsi namespace would be STP).  "connectedTo" would work, no doubt, 
>> but the question is: should we use this if we already used "next" in 
>> circuit monitoring (and both mean the same).
>>
>>>>> - 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.
>>> There's a FOAF namespace in RDF which describes similar things about 
>>> a person. However, it's not really a standard I think.
>>> There's also the vCard standard, for which there is (I think) both 
>>> an RDF and XML notation.
>>
>> yes, vCard was my first candidate as well
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6351
>>
>> Roman
>>
>>> Jeroen.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nml-wg mailing list
>> nml-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20120216/14d33310/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AutoGOLE-Topo-2012-01-25-NML_example_v2.xml
Type: text/xml
Size: 7232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20120216/14d33310/attachment-0001.xml>