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

[Henrik Thostrup Jensen]

Further suggestions:

Relax the ORGID constraint to be FQDN only, as (AFAICT) there is no 
practical way of enforcing the DATE part.

Add labelType attribute in switching service to indicate which labels can 
be switched (this one has already been discussed, this is just to add it 
to the list).

/Henrik

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Henrik Thostrup Jensen 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