RE: [nm-wg] Current Schema changes?
Hey Tanya, Thanks for your email. Hope things are good.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nm-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-nm-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of Tanya Brethour Sent: 15 December 2004 19:52 To: nm-wg@ggf.org Subject: [nm-wg] Current Schema changes?
Hi. Sorry I missed the call last week, but I had a prior appointment.
No problem.
First, are there minutes from the call anywhere online? I have checked the email archive and I don't think they were sent to the list.
They haven't been sent out yet. It's my weekend job. However, we really only discussed the new schema work and the next face-to-face meeting, not the existing schemas.
Second, I still have not heard anything about the issues regarding the current response schema and "finishing it". In previous emails I sent out a list of items that need to be corrected, but this always seemed to get skipped or not put on the agenda.
Can you please remind me what these issues are? Is it.... * Figuring out how to represent a hopList. * It looking like there's nothing in the request schema to store AvailableBandwidth. * "Host" never being used in the response schema. * Getting the schemas into CVS, and giving a wider group of people access. If so, then Paul and I are looking at them, and I did give some initial feedback in a mail on Oct 22nd. Paul and I have actually arranged to work more on this tomorrow, including responding to some feedback from a recent European (EGEE) use of the schemas. I can hopefully report on this during the next call (next Tuesday, the 21st). As a general point, if anyone thinks something is being skipped or not covered at all, then please let me know and I can make sure it gets its fair share of time! I'm good, just not at reading minds ;-)
Lastly, I've been reviewing the developers guide sent out, and I was wondering if Martin or Dan could just summarize the benefits of this schema over the current one. I just want to make sure I understand why we are headed in this direction.
Not my bag baby ;-) Over to Martin and Dan....
Lastly, I've been reviewing the developers guide sent out, and I was wondering if Martin or Dan could just summarize the benefits of this schema over the current one. I just want to make sure I understand why we are headed in this direction.
Not my bag baby ;-) Over to Martin and Dan....
The hope is that new schemas will be easier to extend to incorporate new/changed measurements, topologies, etc. For existing measurements like traceroute, ping, etc., they aren't really easier (well, harder if you count the fact that there are already implementations of the other schemas). By "easier" I mean both in terms of writing the WSDL/XML junk and in terms of actual implementation. This is of course only a fond hope (or, a bold claim, after a few beers) at the moment. We need some implementation experience to verify it. Martin has promised to belch out some Perl code as a prototype. Details on how this was/is done will go into the developer's guide. Going forward on the current schemas is still useful, IMHO, because it provides solutions (to problems in the real world) that can then just be "ported" to the new schemas. Martin tends to claim that the appropriate XSLT could do this automatically, but since nobody in the group really knows XSLT, I suspect the process will be much more manual. -Dan
Can you please remind me what these issues are? Is it....
* Figuring out how to represent a hopList. * It looking like there's nothing in the request schema to store AvailableBandwidth. * "Host" never being used in the response schema. * Getting the schemas into CVS, and giving a wider group of people access.
If so, then Paul and I are looking at them, and I did give some initial feedback in a mail on Oct 22nd. Paul and I have actually arranged to work more on this tomorrow, including responding to some feedback from a recent European (EGEE) use of the schemas. I can hopefully report on this during the next call (next Tuesday, the 21st).
I believe you have them all in that list. Unfortunatly I will on vacation the next two weeks and will miss that call. If you can send me an update via email or the minutes, I can comment when I get back. Getting the first 3 things cleaned up would be great :) Thanks, Tanya
participants (3)
-
Dan Gunter -
Leese, MJ (Mark) -
Tanya Brethour