[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE

[Jerry Sobieski]

Sure - thats a good idea:-)   (Duh!)

Thanks Roman!
J

On 2/15/12 8:18 AM, Roman Łapacz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tomorrow we've got the NML conf call. Can we discuss it then?
>
> Roman
>
> W dniu 2012-02-15 14:08, Jerry Sobieski pisze:
>> Could we have a Skype call to dscuss this...I am not following the 
>> whole proposal here - proabably because I am not clear on the NML 
>> constructs...  We need some examples.
>>
>> I am available this afternoon (EST) after the NSI call.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jerry
>>
>> On 2/15/12 6:31 AM, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>>> W dniu 2012-02-15 11:47, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Feb 2012, at 14:30, Roman Łapacz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> - I've created a new namespace nml-nsi which groups NSI elements. 
>>>>> This allows to avoid using type attribute to indicate that, for 
>>>>> example, the network element represents the NS network.
>>>> Seems sensible to me.
>>>>
>>>>> - I had a problem with the STP element because in general I didn't 
>>>>> want to introduce new names if it's not really needed. Finally, I 
>>>>> found out (correct me if I'm wrong) that we can treat it as a 
>>>>> port, but specific one and belonging to NSI namespace. This may be 
>>>>> new to the NSI team but I hope it's only a matter of terminology 
>>>>> and does not violate some basic functionality definitions.
>>>> I think that that is correct. An STP is a specialized form of a 
>>>> Port, one that is used to define the boundary between an 
>>>> intra-domain network service and some other service. This can be an 
>>>> inter-domain network service, or something like a PerfSonar server.
>>>>
>>>>> An example I'm sending contains only the topology description of 
>>>>> PIONIER (I didn't want to waste too much time for mapping all 
>>>>> domains included in the owl file). I propose to focus on examples 
>>>>> and later prepare the schema file (xsd or rnc; or both). This 
>>>>> approach may speed up our work.
>>>> I agree. Most domains are roughly equal in setup, and certainly 
>>>> equal in constructs. Doing this for one domain is fine.
>>>>
>>>> On to the comments for your description:
>>>>
>>>> - You're using<nml:relation type="next">  to describe connections, 
>>>> this should be<nml:relation type="connectedTo">.
>>>
>>> I proposed "next" because it was already used in the framework for 
>>> circuit monitoring. I'm hesitating to introduce an other name which 
>>> means the same (1. as I wrote I try to limit new names; 2. use of 
>>> new name would be incompatible or inconsistent with that solution 
>>> for circuit monitoring).  On the other hand, "connectedTo" is 
>>> already used by NSI so I understand that some continuation is 
>>> welcome. If you think that it's really important to keep 
>>> "connectedTo" then I'm fine.
>>>
>>>> - We don't have an nml:contact object at the moment, but it seems 
>>>> that we may indeed need one. However, defining the contact methods 
>>>> should perhaps be done using some other appropriate (standard) schema.
>>>
>>> I'll try to find something. Any suggestions are welcome.
>>>
>>> Roman
>>>
>>>> Jeroen.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nml-wg mailing list
>>> nml-wg at ogf.org
>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
>