[Nml-wg] XML Examples and Proposals

[Jeroen van der Ham]

Hi,

On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:23, Jason Zurawski wrote:
> 
> This still seems like a lifetime to me:
> 
>> <nml:topo id="freekishnet">
>>    <lifetime>
>>      <start>Sun Mar 11 13:25:33 EDT 2012</start>
>>      <end>Mon Mar 12 17:20:00 EDT 2012</end>
>>    </lifetime>
>>    <!-- awesome stuff -->
>> </nml:topo>
>> 
>> <nml:topo id="freekishnet">
>>    <lifetime>
>>      <start>Mon Mar 12 17:20:00 EDT 2012</start>
>>      <!-- lack of end or duration means current? -->
>>    </lifetime>
>>    <!-- more awesome stuff -->
>> </nml:topo>
> 
> It becomes explicit that one has a shelf life, and the other is ongoing.  With 'version' you are left with an arbitrary mark that something is different (and it may be the case that its a date, but it could be just '1' or '2a').  If we see the later being more common, I suppose the use case is different and in this case we may want both to be allowed.
> 

While we so far have not shied away from verbose solutions, the above is way too verbose for my liking. In your proposal, when I announce a new topology, I have to send the old one with an ended lifetime, and also the new one with a lifetime element, with just a start.

Version numbers have worked for DNS, I see no reason why this would be any different.

At the same time, Lifetime does have a valid use for describing reservations, virtual machines, or crossconnects. This use of Lifetime to me is a completely different meaning than versioning topologies. A reservation ceases to exist after its end-time. A topology is not something that usually has an intended lifetime, it is, and may be updated in the future.


Jeroen.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 235 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20120313/c940fa9c/attachment.pgp>