June 2009 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

Teleconference
by Jeroen van der Ham 07 Jul '09

07 Jul '09

Hello all, We've had a good teleconference last week, although it was unfortunate that Martin could not be there. For next time it would be useful if at least Martin is there, and hopefully also most of the other authors. Martin, could you also send out the new version of your section before the teleconference? I'm setting up a new doodle to figure out the best time again: http://doodle.com/6tgsegv3f93qh69m Jeroen.

3 4

Agenda Teleconference
by Jeroen van der Ham 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Hello, This phone conference is primarily intended for the authors of the schema document. Just a short agenda for your reference: Original outline of the document: - Introduction (Martin&Jeroen, possibly Anand) - Schema (Martin&Jeroen) - Identifiers (Lars) - Examples/Use Cases (Freek) On each of the sections we should perhaps discuss what the content roughly should be, and talk about progress. Any other points? Jeroen.

3 2

[Fwd: [Nsi-wg] Notes from call 6-24]
by Jeroen van der Ham 25 Jun '09

25 Jun '09

Hello, Below are some points that were raised during an NSI conference call yesterday. I don't remember the details, but I believe we have had discussions on identifiers and how to relate these to domains. I also believe that this is more of an NML than an NSI issue. Also note that Topology Aggregation/Abstraction is being discussed in the NSI, and I believe that our schema should also account for that. Jeroen. > > 2. > We had a lot of discussion about how topology is shared, and what must > be shared for something to work. > - Some discussion about how one finds out if a location is available. > We discussed that the edgepoints would be described as URIs and that > the URI would include information about the network/domain to which > the edgepoint belongs. In addition a lookup service has been proposed > that will allow a dns-like name to be mapped to its URI. This name > might be used in the request and then NSA would use the lookup service > to convert it to URI. > - talked more about distinction between dataplane paths and control > plane paths. They do not need to map to each other, and when finding > a global route one may find a set of NSAs that can provide an > interconnected dataplane path. The NSAs would then figure out the > details of the route. > - talked briefly about the distinction between route and topology. We > referenced Radek's abstracted topology as example of topology and > route being a sequence of edge points and hints about how the > edgepoints are interconnected. Guy will try to fill out this > distinction as part of the messaging he is working on.

1 0

Adaptation use cases
by John Vollbrecht 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

NML group -- Attached are a set of use cases for adaptation. We have talked about these briefly on NSI call and they seem reasonable. We have not yet tried to deal with how to describe adaptations or include them in topology or use them in pathfinding. I hope this is useful in discussions about NML schema. Let me know if there are questions. John

1 0

Re: [Nml-wg] Schema Teleconference
by Jason Zurawski 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

zurawski(a)internet2.edu has invited you to a conference call. Starting Time: Jun 25, 2009 at 11:00 AM, US/Eastern Duration: 1:00 To join both the web and audio conference (recommended), click here: https://edial.internet2.edu/call/0197468 If you only want to participate in the audio conference, you may dial in with the following numbers: Call: +1-734-615-7474 (PSTN CALL-OUT DOES NOT WORK) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0197468 > Hi, > > It seems that we do not have a conference bridge easily available here. > Perhaps someone from Internet2 can provide a bridge? (Seems best, given > the fact that the majority of the participants is from the US anyway.) > > Jeroen. > > Jeroen van der Ham wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > At the last OGF meeting I volunteered to setup a teleconference to help >> > discuss the schema and work on the draft. >> > >> > I've created a Doodle scheduler to get an impression for what the best >> > time would be for everyone. So far I've only entered some dates and I'm >> > guessing that 15:00 European / 9:00 EST is the best time for this. Other >> > suggestions for time are welcome. >> > >> > Please fill in your availability at: http://doodle.com/4d9bzu9ippeemcw9 >> > >> > Jeroen. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > nml-wg mailing list >> > nml-wg(a)ogf.org >> > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > nml-wg mailing list > nml-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

1 0

Schema Teleconference
by Jeroen van der Ham 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Hello, At the last OGF meeting I volunteered to setup a teleconference to help discuss the schema and work on the draft. I've created a Doodle scheduler to get an impression for what the best time would be for everyone. So far I've only entered some dates and I'm guessing that 15:00 European / 9:00 EST is the best time for this. Other suggestions for time are welcome. Please fill in your availability at: http://doodle.com/4d9bzu9ippeemcw9 Jeroen.

4 7

Re: [Nml-wg] Schema Teleconference
by Jason Zurawski 24 Jun '09

24 Jun '09

Yes, I will set one up and get the info to the list later today. -jason ------Original Message------ From: Jeroen van der Ham Sender: nml-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org To: Network Markup Language Working Group Subject: Re: [Nml-wg] Schema Teleconference Sent: Jun 24, 2009 6:51 AM Hi, It seems that we do not have a conference bridge easily available here. Perhaps someone from Internet2 can provide a bridge? (Seems best, given the fact that the majority of the participants is from the US anyway.) Jeroen. Jeroen van der Ham wrote: > Hello, > > At the last OGF meeting I volunteered to setup a teleconference to help > discuss the schema and work on the draft. > > I've created a Doodle scheduler to get an impression for what the best > time would be for everyone. So far I've only entered some dates and I'm > guessing that 15:00 European / 9:00 EST is the best time for this. Other > suggestions for time are welcome. > > Please fill in your availability at: http://doodle.com/4d9bzu9ippeemcw9 > > Jeroen. > _______________________________________________ > nml-wg mailing list > nml-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg > > _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg(a)ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg

1 0

Services
by Freek Dijkstra 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

We had a longer discussion if NML should define services? It was quickly clear to us that there are clearly two interpretations of the word "service": 1. Service as a network transport function. For example, an adaptation and network connection are transport processing functions. In the ITU, a lower layer is called a service layer which provide a network function to a (higher) client layer. 2. Service as a control plane daemon. For example a topology exchange service or a provisioning service. Regarding a control plane service: ---------------------------------- Should NML define services? No, but we should facilitate the tying of a service to the network description Template for generic service. We should look at OGSA. GLUE. Evangelos volunteers to propose a template definition. Guak: service may operate on a network Regarding a data transport function: ------------------------------------ Martin argued that Adaptation is just a subclass of Service. I gave his idea some thought over the weekend, and it seems to me that the high level proposal is to define a "service" as a dynamic transport function. That could both imply a cross connect as well as a dynamic adaptation. While I am now convinced that this high level idea is good (good suggestion, Martin!), I do not know how to make this into the schema yet. I am not convinced that Martin's schema proposal (made Adaptation a subclass of Service) is the right way forward. Mostly, I think Service is about *dynamic* (thus changable) trasport functions. A service is thus mostly about describing a *capability* ("it is possible to make this cross connect or this adaptation") and not about the *configuration* ("this-and-that adaptation is currently in place"). NDL only defined cross connects as part of the switching matrix (which contained information about capabilities). However, it did define adaptations, even dynamic adaptations outside of the switch matrix. I am very interested to hear about schemas that did this differently. Here are 3 different adaptations: * Fixed wavelenght over a fibre. This is what happens in most GBICs, and we should be able to describe this as a static feature -- devices often have no knowledge about the characteristics of the GBIC (e.g. is it 50 or 100 GHz spacing?) * Configurable wavelenght over a fibre. This is what happens in a tunable laser. The adaptation remains in place, but some of its properties (here: the label) changes. * VLAN channel over an Ethernet interface. This is a completely dynamic adaptation, which may completely be removed in software (if the Ethernet interface is switched from tagged to untagged). Should all these be represented with the same schema (database entries), or should we distinguish between static and dynamic adaptations. If so, how? Regards, Freek Dijkstra

2 2

Schema changes
by Freek Dijkstra 05 Jun '09

05 Jun '09

Regarding the schema at http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15481 During the last OGF meeting, the following changes have been proposed. - Martin: rename Port/Interface -> Port (Freek: make it clear in the description that this concerns a logical port, not a physical port) - Martin: rename Device/Node -> Node - Guy: rename Network Element -> Network Object (as "network element" has a well established but different meaning in other organisations, namely that what we call Node) - Freek: Port is unidirectional (not bidirectional. This suggestion is based on experience with multicast, and complex adaptation stacks, which were harder to describe using bidirectional Ports. Suggested by Guy) - Freek: Adaptation and Deadaptation are separate classes (to make it unidirectional, just like links) - Martin: Make transport processing functions (Adaptation, Deadaptation and Unidirectional Link) a subclass of Service (see separate email) - Freek: Change the hasPort relation Node-Link to Group-Link and make Node a subclass of Group. This allows a relation between Port and Topology (for describing edge interfaces of a domain, which was not possible with the current schema). - Martin: Add time-based information. Each network object can point to _multiple_ time intervals (with start time and end time). The meaning is that if "the network object is available" during these time interval(s). It was shortly discussed that time intervals can be used for both inventory management as well as reservation data, though it is not yet entirely clear if this can be described with the same type of relation from network object to time interval. Regards, Freek Dijkstra

10 18

Procedure
by Freek Dijkstra 04 Jun '09

04 Jun '09

There has been some discussion on the current procedure on the mailing list and in private conversations. So, with our "chair" hats on, we submit this as proposal for procedure in this working group. The current procedure is as follows: The normative text in deliverable 2 (or the schema diagram by current lack thereof) should form the basis of the current discussion. Changes to the schema can be made by first posting a proposal for changes on the mailing list. You are encouraged to explicitly agree or disagree with proposals sent to the list. We currently do not have a issue tracker or voting mechanism in place since we feel that is overkill at the moment, but one could be used if participants believe that it would add value. Contrary to what has been said on the list, there is no consensus yet. To quote from the Tao of the IETF (on which the OGF processes are based) (see http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#getting.things.done) - Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also gain consensus on the WG mailing list. - It is up to the chair to decide when the Working Group has reached rough consensus. - Decisions tentatively made during an interim WG meeting still must be ratified on the mailing list. Clearly, the schema is still in flux (and the eight changes in one of the previous mails confirms that). So we, as co-chairs, feel that consensus has not been reached yet. That said, we certainly must reach that consensus. We feel that the best way to reach it by discussions on the mailing list, supplemented by face-to-face discussions, exchange of earlier experiences (e.g. with UNIS, cNIS and NDL), and perhaps most important: clear proposals. That is why we strongly encourage Jeroen and others to continue writing the draft of deliverable 2, so that this can be used as further basis for discussions. For particularly contentious issues, we will call for all active participants to indicate their preference. These "calls" for input will be clearly marked and will leave enough time (2 weeks - 1 month) for interested parties to register their input. Finally, if you have any suggestions for improvement of this procedure, feel free to contact us any time, or write a clear proposal for change of the procedure to the mailing list. We wish you all fruitful discussions, and inspired writings. Regards, Freek Dijkstra Martin Swany

1 0