[Nsi-wg] NSI WSDL - The Maastricht Updates

[Jerry Sobieski]

I strongly suggest that we limit any addition changes now in V2 to only 
those that correct something that is broken or that clearly does not 
work as is.

We could continue to tweek stuff forever and many of these changes 
should be considered more thoroughly by the group.  There *will* be 
additional considereations we are going to have to address in v3 (things 
like protection are a good example of issues that were not discussed in 
our v2 requirements and need a broader discussion anyway.)   Besides, 
stuffing something in now will not necessarilly prevent it from being 
reviewed and possibly changed again in V3 anyway.    Lets try to stop 
these elective "improvements" and get v2 out the door.

J


We will have a chance to
On 6/20/13 9:45 AM, Henrik Thostrup Jensen wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20130620/2f45e6d3/attachment.html>