[Nsi-wg] NSI service

[Henrik Thostrup Jensen]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, John MacAuley wrote:

> Yes you can combine them if you need to.  But I think the protocol will 
> work without them combined. The csProviderEndpoint value tells the RA 
> how to contact the PA for a network.  The RA fills in the replyTo field 
> within the SOAP request to tell the PA how to respond with the 
> confirmation, failed, or forcedEnd messages.

I combine the endpoints in OpenNSA, but as I interpret the protocol, this 
is not a requirement at all, and the protocol explicitely supports 
different endpoitns for this.

It is important to note, that the RA endpoint is only advertised through 
the replyTo field (AFAIK), and never in the topology and requester / 
provider fields.

> Comments?

I find that there are way to many addressing schemes. Currently there is:

A. NSA provider endpoint advertisted through topology.
B. NSA provider and requester endpoint specified in provider/requester
    message fields.
C. NSA requester endpoint specified in replyTo message field.

Which is simply to many IMHO.

I think the providerNSA and requesterNSA fields in the message could be 
removed entirely without problems (these fields smell alot like some low 
level protocol where security is not an issue - which is not the case for 
NSI at all).

I would also like to see the removal of the replyTo field, such that an 
NSA only has one contact point - the one advertised through the topology.


     Best regards, Henrik

  Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at ndgf.org>
  NORDUnet / Nordic Data Grid Facility.