Jason Zurawski wrote:
The original thinking was the NM-WG document, "An Extensible Schema for Network Measurement and Performance Data", would contain the entire explanation of namespaces (the idea itself coming from another OGF WG). Any future documents from related projects (NMC, NML, others?) would reference this and only note caveats to the original rule. The NM-WG doc is here:
OK, now I see. So just the reference to namespace description is enough. Comparing those two docs I think we could describe xml elements the same way (now, one doc uses tables, the other one uses simple lists).
And I think namespaces are in section 4. Does everyone think this is sufficient, or should we consider other options?
- example of status response in 4.1 does not explain too much (looks the same as earlier response example)
Now that things are in SVN, could you suggest a more fitting example?
I'll take a close look here.
- I'm wondering whether we can say in 4.3.3 that the request with more data triggers includes logical independent sub-requests
The concept of chaining is also something that Martin and I have struggled to find a proper location. Chaining is explained in sections 5 and 6 of the above NM-WG document currently. I think the basics should remain in NM-WG since the concept of the chain is essential to the definition of data and metadata. We may be able to reference the basic concept though to motivate some of the more unique cases.
Agree. Main description in NM-WG doc and only the reference to it in NMC-WG doc (with some additional information related with NMC). This way we'll keep consistency. Now I see two names for the same thing: operation chaining (NM-WG doc) and filter chaining (NMC-WG doc). I'm also thinking that maybe filer chaining fits better into NMC-WG (it deals more with action than data/metadata representation).
- I would remove parameter elements "supportedEventType" from all message examples. I understand that it's supported by the implementations but it's agreed to use eventType element
I don't think this is a big deal, since these are just examples. I can remove them if we think it will cause confusion.
I would clean it. Roman