[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Jeff W. Boote]

On Feb 16, 2012, at 7:03 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
>> 
>> My thinking is that NML would be more interesting and useful for users 
>> (in this case NSI) if we don't impose too many restrictions.
> 
> I agree if you are saying "don't impose too many restrictions on the
> network topology that users can describe".
> 
> I disagree if you are saying "don't impose too many restrictions on the
> number of ways that users can describe the same topology".
> 

Freek++

We can't forget the primary purpose of the schema. It is to communicate the topology among software/hardware implementations. It is not to describe it to humans. And, we want that software to be as simple to write and keep up to date as possible. (So - lets not have multiple ways to describe the same topology please.)

Computers don't care if this is 'Next' or 'ConnectedTo'. It could be called 'RelationType3' and it would be just fine as long as it is consistent. The only reason to name it something in particular is to make sure it is understandable to the programmers writing the software. 

Lets just pick something, document it well, and move on. ;)

Jeff


> In both cases the core building blocks are (logical) ports and links
> between these logical ports, and I do not see any restrictions there
> (which I think is good), but I do see two different methods how this
> same topology is described (which I think is bad).
> 
> Regards,
> Freek
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg