[Nml-wg] Example topology of Automated GOLE
Roman Łapacz
romradz at man.poznan.pl
Thu Feb 16 11:21:09 EST 2012
W dniu 2012-02-16 17:09, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
> Roman Łapacz wrote:
>
>>> The question at hand is basically how to describe the following (with
>>> apologies with my poor ASCII art skills)
>>>
>>> port A link X port B link Y port C
>>> O------------------>O------------------>O
>>>
>>> Roman described this as:
>>>
>>> Port A
>>> relation=next/connectTo
>>> port B
>>> Port B
>>> relation=next/connectTo
>>> port C
>>>
>>> In the NML schema it is currently defined as:
>>>
>>> link X
>>> relation=source
>>> port A
>>> relation=sink
>>> port B
>>> link Y
>>> relation=source
>>> port B
>>> relation=sink
>>> port C
>>>
>>> Previous year I noticed some reluctance in describing both Ports and
>>> Links in examples, and asked if there was need to simplify as follows:
>>>
>>> link X
>>> relation=serialcompound
>>> link Y
>>>
> [...]
>>> What I'm saying is that I would regret seeing all three options as "valid".
>> But if NSI wants to use paths/links as connected ports because of some
>> reasons then I would be open to let them do it this way. Other
>> users/applications may prefer using links because of some other reasons.
>> By setting the limits should we prevent various users/applications from
>> utilizing NML? Do we want to be so strict? Extensions (namespaces) and
>> minimal set of rules would be an answer.
> I do not see how the current source/sink syntax "prevent various
> users/applications from utilizing NML".
>
> I agree it is not the most compact syntax out there. But I think it
> makes it possible to describe the network topology that NSI uses.
>
> Again, that should be the restriction: can it describe the desired
> topology. Not: does it match the syntactical constructs we currently have.
I see you point and am not against. I'm only asking the questions which
may appear on the user side. The best way is to answer someone from NSI.
Roman
> Freek
More information about the nml-wg
mailing list