[Nsi-wg] NSI service

[John MacAuley]

On 2011-09-05, at 6:48 AM, Henrik Thostrup Jensen wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, John MacAuley wrote:
> 
>> Looks like I have some explaining to do.  We forget that not everyone is participating in the NSI weekly meetings and the extra special OGF conference meetings.  Lucky for you, but unfortunately you miss the results of some of the discussions.
> 
> One of the key ideas with a standard is that one is supposed to be able to implement it without having overheard some decision on how to represent something in a phone meeting :-).

True, but one could also read the documentation which states "correlationId - An identifier provided by the requesting NSA used to correlate to an asynchronous response from the responder. It is recommended that a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID) URN as per IETF RFC 4122 be used as a globally unique value." :-)

I wanted to make sure the value was as unique as possible so designers could have certainty when coding that people would not but stuff like "corrid-1" in the field.

> 
>> Here is what a request should look like based on all the agreements we have reached.  We need to make sure everyone follows this pattern or chaos will prevail :-)
> 
> Thanks for providing an example, it is highly needed.
> 
> I have a few comments, but we should definitely wait to after Rio with modifying anything.
> 
>>         <int:correlationId>urn:uuid:73d32a9d-fc68-4736-9c24-99abce1aaea3</int:correlationId>
> 
> This is not a UUID (correlationId is a uuidType). It is a URI/URN, which happens to by a UUID. Also there is a slew of ways to represent UUIDs. I do not see the reason for forcing the usage of UUIDs. Given the constraints I would have choosen UUIDs myself, but forcing a specific technology into the spec. seems a bit silly. A string would do fine as type.

This comment I do not understand.  We are using names spaces throughout the specification to provide context to a field.  For example, the STP, NSA, and global reservation Id all use them so why not be consistent throughout the message?  In addition, we have forced specific formats and naming standards on all the fields.  UUID happens to be a globally accepted standard for generating unique identifiers,  We needed one, so why not use the standard everyone else in the computer industry uses :-)

> 
>>            <requesterNSA>urn:ogf:network:nsa:Aruba-OpenNSA</requesterNSA>
>>            <providerNSA>urn:ogf:network:NSnetwork:Martinique-DynamicKL</providerNSA>
>>               <globalReservationId>urn:ogf:network:service:Aruba:conn-560</globalReservationId>
>>               <connectionId>urn:uuid:593d9816-0574-471d-b2a9-101e63a5d0f2</connectionId>
> 
> Are we just using URNs because it is possible? I have a hard time seeing what value they add here? (they do not provide a global namespace).

Is your main issue that I prefixed the UUID with "urn:uuid" or are you fundamentally against enforcement of a unique identifier in the field?


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