[Nml-wg] XML Examples and Proposals

[Jeff W. Boote]

On Mar 13, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> All,
> 
> Can we agree that we have two use cases:
> * A link with a certain reservation (with start and endtime)
> * Update of the internal of a topology

Given hierarchical and abstracted topologies, I don't see these as different cases. We have groups building networks on-top of "reserved" links.

Jeff

> 
> And two techniques to represent either:
> * Lifetime object with start time and optional end time
> * version (sequence number) which can be interpreted as a start time
> 
> Looking at the use cases individually, I would say that the most elegant
> solution for use case 1 (reservation time) is a lifetime object.
> The most elegant solution for use case 2 (updates) is a version sequence
> number.
> 
> Looking at both use cases, I have a preference to pick one solution,
> rather than two solutions.
> 
> My initial idea was to pick version sequence number, and get rid of
> lifetime.
> Jason proposes to keep lifetime, and use it for use cases.
> Jeroen proposes to keep both concepts.
> 
> Despite my initial preference, I know am inclined to keep both concepts.
> The reason is that I can very well envision the following scenario:
> 
> telco: "Here is your link reservation, it's from 2 to 4 tomorrow"
> user: "thanks, I found out I need it a bit longer, can you extend my
> reservation?"
> telco: "Sure, here is an update of your reservation. it's now from 2 to
> 5 tomorrow"
> user: "great"
> 
> In this scenario, one can attach a version sequence number to a lifetime
> object. (let me know if you want the XML version of the above exchange.)
> 
> The mere fact that it is possible to logically combine the concepts in a
> single message with a perfectly valid meaning got me convinced that
> we're dealing with two distinct attributes.
> 
> Hence, I changed my opinion, and have a slight preference to keep both
> concepts: both lifetime object and version attribute.
> 
>> Clarify this - is 'version' just something that lives on the 'topology' 
>> element, or is version something that all elements now contain?  Can we 
>> version nodes (e.g. a switch got a firmware update, or new ports added), 
>> or links, or ports, or anything else in our universe?
> 
> I'm currently only interested in attaching version to a topology, but
> wouldn't object to attaching it to other Network Object. What is your
> preference? Only attach it to a Topology, or also to Nodes and other
> Network Objects?
> 
> Regards,
> Freek
> 	
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg