[Nsi-wg] [Nml-wg] NML Topology identifiers

[Freek Dijkstra]

Hi Henrik,

> Compatible was not a goal here.

You get bonus points for sending this statement to a standardization
mailing list. It should not come to a surprise that I vehemently disagree.

> Having a topology model we thought could
> work was the issue at hand. Nothing else.

I fully agree that's even more important, but I don't think the two rule
each other out.

I don't think any more statements I'll make about the above will lead to
a fruitful discussion, so I leave it at that.


It's arguably more constructive to focus on the problems, and solution.
Either I disagree with a few of your statements, or I simply don't
understand them. Let's hope it's the later. :)

If you have some time, I certainly appreciate it if you can explain your
criticism a bit more. What works best for you? Email, phone call, or in
person at OGF 40?


>> [...] The NML starting points are:
>> * all identifiers are opaque
>> * all relations need to made explicit
> 
> Actually there are some deeper assumptions hidden here:
> 
> * The model is relational

Yes. Is that good or bad according to you?

I don't see what this has to do with the identifiers used by NML.

> * No abstraction mechanism for topology

Most certainly there are! Topologies are in fact abstractions of a
network (they give a function description of a network, and it's
services). It allows description of hierachical topologies, each
subtopology containing less abstraction and more detail (section 5.3.2
of NML base). This is unlike the Node concept in NML which is used to
describe devices and the non-abstracted topology.

I have the idea I use the word 'abstraction' in a different way than you
do. What do you mean with 'abstraction mechanism'?

> * Ignore security (arguably this is insanely difficult)

Agree. I think a lookup service could actually solve of the security
issues, but even then it is very difficult.

> * Ignore usuability (everything with topology went smooth in the autogole
>   demos, right?)

Sorry, I do not understand.

>> This is very flexible, but does not scale.
> 
> Scaling is the least of its problems (but scaling is a problem people
> like to think about).

What are more serious problems in your opinion?


I leave my remarks about the remainder of your email for another time.
For now, I like to understand the above.

Regards,
Freek

-- 
Freek Dijkstra
| Group Leader & Network Expert | Infrastructure Services | SURFsara |
| Science Park 140 | 1098 XG Amsterdam | +31 6 4484 7459 |
| Freek.Dijkstra at surfsara.nl | www.surfsara.nl |

Available on Mon | Tue | Thu | Fri |