[Nml-wg] XML Examples and Proposals

[Roman Łapacz]

W dniu 2012-03-12 21:23, Jason Zurawski pisze:
> Hi Freek/All;
>
> On 3/12/12 2:16 PM, thus spake Freek Dijkstra:
>> Jason Zurawski wrote:
>>
>>>> I came to realise that lifetime and version are two different 
>>>> concepts.
>>>>
>>>> A lifetime signifies a duration (e.g. of a reserved link), while a
>>>> version is a sequence number to track updates of a 'document' (where
>>>> 'document' is a network description).
>>>
>>> then why not use the versioned namespace?  Thats why we put versions in
>>> namespaces?
>>>
>>> <nml1:topo />
>>>
>>> <nml2:topo />
>>
>> I did not mean versioning of the schema, but versioning of the
>> (topology) instance.
>>
>> E.g.
>>
>> F: "Hey guy's, this is my latest network!"
>>
>> <nml:topo id="freekishnet" version="2012-03-12">
>> <!-- awesome stuff -->
>> </nml:topo>
>>
>> (... After a well deserved night's sleep ...)
>>
>> F: "Hey guys, I added a unloaded swallow to my network today, totally
>> putting yesterday's network in shame!"
>>
>> <nml:topo id="freekishnet" version="2012-03-13">
>> <!-- even more awesome stuff -->
>> </nml:topo>
>>
>> It has the same identifier, but because it has a different version, you
>> know which one is the latest-and-greatest.
>
> This still seems like a lifetime to me:
>
>> <nml:topo id="freekishnet">
>> <lifetime>
>> <start>Sun Mar 11 13:25:33 EDT 2012</start>
>> <end>Mon Mar 12 17:20:00 EDT 2012</end>
>> </lifetime>
>> <!-- awesome stuff -->
>> </nml:topo>
>>
>> <nml:topo id="freekishnet">
>> <lifetime>
>> <start>Mon Mar 12 17:20:00 EDT 2012</start>
>> <!-- lack of end or duration means current? -->
>> </lifetime>
>> <!-- more awesome stuff -->
>> </nml:topo>
>
> It becomes explicit that one has a shelf life, and the other is 
> ongoing.  With 'version' you are left with an arbitrary mark that 
> something is different (and it may be the case that its a date, but it 
> could be just '1' or '2a').  If we see the later being more common, I 
> suppose the use case is different and in this case we may want both to 
> be allowed.

I'm also thinking that the lifetime element can be used for versioning. 
<start> may be misleading but I would accept having the optional 
timestamp element inside the lifetime

<lifetime>
<timestamp>Mon Mar 12 17:20:00 EDT 2012</timestamp>
</lifetime>


Roman

>
>
> -jason
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg