[Nsi-wg] NSI WSDL - The Maastricht Updates

[Henrik Thostrup Jensen]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013, John MacAuley wrote:

> Notice the service attributes provided.  This is an example of the two ways we can specify the same
> thing, and in this case, it is the SURFnet subnetwork protection attribute.  I would like to flatten
> the serviceAttributes structure to a simple ANY to give us the following:
> 
>         <serviceAttributes>
>          
>   <surf:sNCP xmlns:surf="http://schemas.surfnet.nl/nsi/2013/04/services">Protected</surf:sNCP>
>         </serviceAttributes>

I like this construction.

> Now onto the key point I was trying to get across.  Bandwidth and path are specific to a symmetric
> point-to-point service.  I would like to make a simple change to move bandwidth and path into
> serviceAttributes with their own specific p2pservice namespace.  This will let us have a more generic
> reserve message.  Here is an example:
[snip]
> This will allow us to use the existing XSD for new service definitions without needing to modify the
> schema.  New attributes can be imported for other namespaces when defined.  It really is a simple
> change and it should provide good value.

This certainly makes the CS protocol way more flexible in specifying 
circuits, and to some extent I like it. The problem is timing as we are 
close to sending the document to the editors, and complete lack of 
discussion in the group about the base of this.

Previously we have discussed the option of having aggregation points, 
where to point-to-point connections could be connected (the underlying NRM 
can choose whatever to make this happen), but this takes a completely 
other approach (though non fundementally incompatible).

There is also the whole multi-domain aspect to consider. How we do 
multicast and protected paths across those in a proper way. Anything 
single-domain with NSI is point-less IMHO.


     Best regards, Henrik

  Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net>
  Software Developer, NORDUnet