[Nml-wg] Schema changes

[Freek Dijkstra]

Jeroen wrote:

>> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but multi-layer topology
>> descriptions were never the aim of the first schema document.

Martin wrote:

> My read of the charter is that the "base" schema doesn't have
> specific parameters for e.g. SONET, Ethernet, etc and that those
> are to be defined later.  But I think that the "base" schema should
> have the scaffolding to relate various layers.   I don't think that is
> goes against the charter in word or intent.  I also think it makes
> it more valuable.

Hi Martin, others,

I do follow Jeroen's reading of the charter (which can be found at 
http://www.ogf.org/gf/group_info/charter.php?review&group=nml-wg).

To quote (emphasis is mine):

> D2. A recommendation document describing a normative schema which
> allow the description of a basic network topology. THIS SCHEMA DOES
> NOT INCLUDE ANY LAYER OR TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC INFORMATION.
> 
> D3. A recommendation document describing a normative schema which,
> along with the schema in deliverable 2, can be used to describe a
> multi-layer network.

However, after some discussions with Martin, I now think that it can be 
read in both ways.

So I would like to ask the working group for input.

A) Should deliverable 2 contain the full abstract schema, including 
adaptations, and deliverable 3 the application of the schema to actual 
technologies?

or

B) Should deliverable 2 only contain the single layer schema, and 
deliverable 3 both the multilayer schema extension (e.g. adaptation) as 
well as application of the schema to actual technologies?


To me, the advantage of (B) is that we can proceed quicker with 
deliverable 2, but the disadvantage is that we may have to make changes
to the base schema based on later discussions. The advantage of (A) is 
that such risk -as eloquently described by Chin- is eliminated (or at 
least a lot less likely).

Regards,
Freek Dijkstra