[Nsi-wg] Message Delivery Layer

[Inder Monga]

Thanks Jeroen. The introduction of the separate layer as a concept is to
help formalize the separation of concerns by handling errors at the MTL
layer. If you look at NSI v1, the state machine was integrated and would
mean that the state machine would change if you changed the requirements
for the MTL layer. This is not the case with NSI v2.0. When people are
talking about different MTL's, then we need to make sure that a change in
MTL will not change the NSI state machine. The MDL makes that possible.

>From your messages, I believe you agree this functionality is needed in
NSA. What you are disagreeing is the formalization of that functionality
into a layer. Maybe the NSI group can comment on that as well or you can
make a formal proposal to the group to change it?

Inder



On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Jeroen van der Ham <vdham at uva.nl> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 12 Dec 2012, at 11:34, Inder Monga <imonga at es.net> wrote:
>
> > Jeroen,
> >
> > What solution are you proposing - it is not clear?
>
> I'm proposing to simplify things, to not introduce another layer, and
> simply describe that the NSI expects the NSA to make an effort in
> delivering a message. It should use the reliable MTL (which we've defined
> to be SOAP). If that fails, then it is up to the NSAs discretion to fail
> directly, or to make an extra effort and try again. Ultimately, it will
> either fail or it will succeed.
>
> To me, it seems like a simple statement that can be added to the document.
> For example where you describe when you go from a state to the failed state.
>
> Jeroen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20121212/c88675c6/attachment.html>