[Nml-wg] [Nsi-wg] Suggestions for revised NML XSD schema

[Jeroen van der Ham]

Hi,

Just to make it clear: I have been the editor of the NML base schema document and in that role flogged you all into action. That document is now published. Furthermore, I’ve taken a new job where I do not have much time to dedicate to this. So I will not be able to take action, or push others to take action.

That being said, I completely agree with the points below, and would welcome an update, errata, or addendum (whichever form is appropriate in the OGF context).

Jeroen.

On 7 Nov 2013, at 13:35, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> It seems we need a rehash of NML XML schema for support NSI. Here are some
> further suggestions for how to improve the schema. The changes should not
> change the semantics of NML, but just make it easier to parse.
> 
> * Any element in PortGroup
> 
>  This is the main problem. John already has a fix for this.
>  Should probably go through the NML schema and check that it is on everywhere.
> 
> * Bidirectional ports after unidirectional ports
> 
>  In the current model a bidirectional port is composed of two unidirectional
>  ports. When building a datastructure representation, this means that one has
>  to construct a temporary value/object to track this mapping, as the data
>  structure representing the undirectional ports have not yet been created.
>  Having the bidirectional ports after the unidirectional removes this need,
>  making the parsing simpler.
> 
> * Replace nml:Relation
> 
>  The nml:Relation constructs are not very "XML". I suggest that instead of
>  <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasInboundPort">
>  one would use:
>  <nml:InboundPorts>
>  Several elements would have to be constructed for this though.
> 
> * Identical List constructs
> 
>  The way list of bidirectional ports and unidirectional ports are created are
>  different. Bidirectional ports are repeated in the topology element, where as
>  unidirectional ports are contained under an element. I.e:
> 
>  <nml:Topology id=...>
>    <nml:BidirectionalPort id=...>
>        ...
>    </nml:BidirectionalPort>
>    <nml:BidirectionalPort id=...>
>        ...
>    </nml:BidirectionalPort>
> 
>    <nml:Relation type="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/05/base#hasInboundPort">
>      <nml:PortGroup id=...>
>          ...
>      </nml:PortGroup>
>      <nml:PortGroup id=...>
>          ...
>      </nml:PortGroup>
>    </nml:Relation>
>  </nml:Topology>
> 
> There isn't really a wrong or right way to do this, but I think doing both is
> the worst option. I understand that bidirectional ports are a somewhat special
> things in NML, but they could still easily be contained in an element.
> 
> 
>    Best regards, Henrik
> 
> Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
> Software Developer, NORDUnet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg