[Nml-wg] Fwd: Two proposals for Adaptation

[Freek Dijkstra]

Jason Zurawski wrote:

> I believe this makes the most sense as a service, I will add this
> comment into the ticket as well.

Yeah.

It felt a bit awkward to describe a fixed adaptation as a service.
Mostly because I (mis?)interpreted "service" as "dynamic service".

A SFP contains an Ethernet-over-a-wavelength adaptation. You may say
that the wavelength provides an Ethernet service, even there is nothing
dynamic about it (the Ethernet may in turn provides dynamic services,
but that's a different Service description).

Three reason to describe it as a service:
1. That's what we came up with at OGF 33.
2. I want to pick one, not allow both.
3. NML will mostly describe the dynamic adaptation, only rarely static
adaptations. (3)

(3) Path finding uses dynamic adaptations; One often monitors dynamic
services, etc. Static adaptation are mostly used within a domain and
that info is -I think- rarely exchanged with other domains.

Freek


PS: Sorry for the many mails today. I've recently been busy applying NML
to a real-world monitoring scenario, and this is more or less the
culmination of issues that I've found. On the bright side, I was happy
to see how complete NML is by now. The only downside was that I ended up
writing a 2000-line XML file by hand. According to my wife I was
mumbling about "closing tags" in my sleep ;).