March 2012 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

WG last call
by Freek Dijkstra 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

Just a reminder, that the following 5 artifacts are now in "work group last call". If there are no remarks or objections before April 12, I'll consider these proposals as "workgroup consensus". > https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6534 - Case > https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6539 - Inbound/Outbound Ports > https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6538 - Verbs in relation-names > https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6545 - isSerialCompoundLink > https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6550 - isSource/isSink relations Regards, Freek

1 0

Notes from call March 29th
by Jeroen van der Ham 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

Hi, The issue tracker has been used extensively to discuss issues over the last week, and has been used in the call as well to steer discussion, so this seems to work very well. On the call were Aaron, Freek, Roman, Jeroen and Chin Propose to close (with reject status): https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6540 - Relate BidirectionalPorts https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6487 - Virtual Node concept Both have been rejected, Virtual Node with the note that this can be described using the "implementedBy" relation. https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6537 - Implicit relations Has been discussed extensively. We are in agreement that hasTopology, hasNode, hasPort can be defined using inclusion. However, it is still up for debate how to handle the explicit definitions of these Relations. Should parsers still accept this or not? Should clients write this or not? Please use ticket above to add your opinion. https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6545 - serialCompoundLink has been extensively discussed on the tracker, moves into Last Call https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6550 - source/sink Relations isSource & isSink is accepted, moved into Last Call We did identify an issue with inverse relations though, a new item has been opened for that: https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6553?nav=1 - allowing inverse relations https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6542 - VLAN Has been agreed upon, moved into Last Call. Some questions about return traffic being a switch feature, not a VLAN feature per se were raised. However, this is a minor issue and this is the best way to describe it. Next call will be on April 5th, same time, same place.

2 1

NML call on March 29th
by Jeroen van der Ham 29 Mar '12

29 Mar '12

Hi all, The summer-time-dance has reached Europe as well, so we should be back to our usual difference. UTC 15:00 - Ams 17:00 - Eastern 11:00 - Pacific 8:00 Call: +1-734-615-7474 (Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0186145 We'll be discussing most of the issues I sent out earlier. Freek will followup with a more detailed list soon. Jeroen.

3 6

Procedural clarification
by Freek Dijkstra 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Hi Jason, > I tried to provide some comments in these issues. Thanks; Thanks again. I noted that you put in the comment "This issue should be updated with the discussion from the mailing list" You are absolutely right, and I volunteer for the task to clean up the tracker items and copy & paste relevant comments that have gone on the mailing list. Jeroen already provided a great start listing the issues, and we are well aware that the discussions indeed need to be copied in still. For tomorrow's call only these four items are on the table https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6537 - Implicit relations https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6545 - serialCompoundLink https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6550 - source/sink Relations https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6542 - VLAN And these three are in working group last call: https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6534 - Case https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6539 - Inbound/Outbound Ports https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6538 - Verbs in relation-names My plan is to use the following status for each artifact: - New -- just entered, need proposal or discussion - Need proposal -- waiting for volunteer to write proposal(s) - Under discussion -- raise your voice - Need documentation - waiting for volunteer - Completed -- it is in the documentation - Rejected -- No volunteers can be found; may be reopened later I don't want a formal state machine (discussion can become before or after a proposal depending on how things go), but mostly I do want to streamline the process a bit. I have not added a "working group last call" status. Perhaps that's useful. I just changed the available statuses in the tracker, but have not updated the individual artifacts. I'll do so later. Let me know if this is helpful or not. Regards, Freek

1 0

Case & Inbound/Outbound Ports
by Freek Dijkstra 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Dear all, During OGF 34 we discusses a dozen topics, to decide on the syntax of XML and RDF. The following two topics were deemed trivial and non-controversial at the time, and I'm pleased to propose them here. If you have any objections or remarks, please speak up. If there are no remarks or objections before April 12, I'll consider these proposals as "workgroup consensus". Case in NML objects =================== https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6534 https://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/nml-examples/201203-schema/case.xml (proposal #1) Summary: Both XML and RDF are case-sensitive. We should decide on the case convention. Proposal: * CamelCase for Objects defined in the NML schema (these are usually rendered as XML elements) * lowerCamelCase for attributes defined in the NML schema (these are usually rendered as XML attributes or attribute values) Example: > <nml:BidirectionalLink id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:between-A-and-B"> > <nml:Link id="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:from-A-to-B"> > <nml:capacity units="bps">10000000000</nml:capacity> > <nml:Relation type="hasSource"> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:A-egress"/> > </nml:Relation> > <nml:Relation type="hasSink"> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:B-ingress"/> > </nml:Relation> > </nml:Link> > <nml:Link idRef="urn:ogf:network:example.net:2012:from-B-to-A"/> > </nml:BidirectionalLink> (sorry about the quoting, it seems the only way to prevent my mail client from wrapping these lines) Inbound/Outbound Ports ====================== https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6539 https://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/nml-examples/201203-subtopology/inbound-out… (proposal #3) Summary: It is useful to specify the direction of a port: ingress or egress with respect to a Node or Topology. Proposal: * use hasInboundPort or hasOutboundPort to relate a Node/Topology/Service to a Port. Example: > <nml:Node id="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net"> > <nml:Relation type="hasInboundPort"> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0_in" /> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-7-0-0_in" /> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-8-0-0_in" /> > </nml:Relation> > <nml:Relation type="hasOutboundPort"> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0_out" /> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-7-0-0_out" /> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-8-0-0_out" /> > </nml:Relation> > </nml:Node> >  > <nml:BidirectionalPort id="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0"> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0_in" /> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-6-0-0_out" /> > </nml:BidirectionalPort> > <nml:BidirectionalPort id="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-7-0-0"> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-7-0-0_in" /> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-7-0-0_out" /> > </nml:BidirectionalPort> > <nml:BidirectionalPort id="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-8-0-0"> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-8-0-0_in" /> > <nml:Port idRef="urn:ogf:network:internet2.edu:2012:rtr.atla.net:ge-8-0-0_out" /> > </nml:BidirectionalPort>

2 2

Outcome of todays discussion at OGF
by Jeroen van der Ham 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

Hello, We've gone through a list of issues and examples today, and we've boiled things down to about 15 issues that we need to get some resolving on. Some are close to decided, others are still open. We've created issues on the tracker to identify these issues, have focused discussions, and to recored the outcomes of those discussions. Please have a look at the following at your convenience: https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6534 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6535 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6536 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6537 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6538 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6539 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6540 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6541 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6542 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6543 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6544 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6545 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6546 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6547 https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6548 Don't hesitate to put down your opinion. We can discuss closing issues during the calls in the following weeks. Jeroen.

2 1

NML call on March 22nd
by Jeroen van der Ham 22 Mar '12

22 Mar '12

Hello, We're planning to do an NML call on March 22nd. This is in the middle of the summer-time-dance, so we shake up the time of the call: UTC 16:00 - Ams 16:00 - Eastern 12:00 - Pacific 9:00 Call: +1-734-615-7474 (Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0186145 Agenda: issues entered at the OGF.

4 7

XML Examples and Proposals
by Freek Dijkstra 14 Mar '12

14 Mar '12

Hi Guys, I hope you like XML. I've just filled the nml-example repository with a whole bunch of examples and proposals that I like to go through next week at the OGF. If you haven't checked it out, do so now: svn checkout --username YourGridForgeName \ https://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/nml-examples If you get a permission error, let me know off-list. The examples are also attached to this mail, but be aware that I may improve some typos and add clarifications in the coming days. The examples and proposals are: subtopology - hasNode four alternative proposals how to relate a topology and a node subtopology - hasTopology one example and three questions how to relate a topology to a subtopology (hopefully trivial after we decided on hasNode) subtopology - inbound-outbound-ports four proposals to decide on the term for ingress and egress ports subtopology - alias three proposal to relate a external port of a topology with its internal structure versioning - lifetime a (surely flawed) example how I interpreted Aaron's description of the current use of lifetime in IDC. versioning - aliases-lifetime versioning - aliases-version six proposals to describe the changes in a network over time using either a lifetime object or a version attribute vlans - compoundlink two questions on the exact name of the source/sink relation and the serial compound link relation vlans - vlan a proposal to describe vlans (Ethernet subnets) between hosts vlan - shared-switchingservice vlan - multiple-switchingservice <not yet written -- will follow sunday or monday> two proposals to describe multiple VLANs as one or more switching services inside a single node In case you wonder "haven't we decided on that already" -- in most cases, "yes" -- while going through previous examples, I've noted some small discrepancies. For examples some examples used "source" relation, while others used "hasSource". I don't care, so we should decide, and that's what this is about: make sure that we make a decision. Note the consensus and make the decision authoritative, so we can refer back to it, and update the previous examples to comply with the decision. I did my best to make all proposals stand on it's own, and VERY much hope that the decision for most proposals is a formality without discussion. Regards, Freek

7 24

Notes from call March 8
by Jeroen van der Ham 08 Mar '12

08 Mar '12

Notes for NML call March 8 ============================== Attendance: Aaron Brown (I2), Freek Dijkstra (SARA), Chin Guok (ESNet), Roman Łapacz (PSNC), Jeroen van der Ham (UvA) Excused: Jason Zurawski 1. Action items from previous call: ----------------------------------- * Freek to write use case on bidirectional and unidirectional links: single fiber with two wavelengths in different directions. * Jerry to write use case on bidirectional and unidirectional links * Jerry to write usecase on NORDUnet being a geographical segregated network (NY and CPH), with possible restrictions between the two locations/networks * Jerry to write this down federated and sub-NSA as a use case. * Freek and Jerry look at the exact definition of NML:Topology and NSI Network, and see if they can sync their definition * Jeroen to move schema figure and check definitions * Freek to check "at layer" relation and "Layer" object * Jeroen to fix the identifiers section * Jeroen to write the security considerations section (DONE!) * Freek to provide link on book identifiers (DONE!) We go through the items in a semi-random order: - Freek to provide link on book identifiers Done, we will present this also to the NSI as food for thought. - Jeroen to write the security considerations section Done, everyone agrees to the wording. - Jeroen to move schema figure and check definitions In progress. Jeroen notes that the document is not consistent currently with the wording of relations. Sometimes camelCase is used, other times written as separate words (located at). Group agrees that it should be camelCase. Jeroen to update the document accordingly. Rest of checking is still in progress. * Freek and Jerry look at the exact definition of NML:Topology and NSI Network, and see if they can sync their definition Done. Freek sent a summary to the list regarding recursive topologies. This will be discussed in more detail at the OGF. * Versioning Freek brought this issue up, Jason noted in an email that any proposal should be backed by examples and use-cases, which we all agree to. Freek will present this at OGF. * LifeTime element On the mailinglist there has been some discussion regarding the LifeTime document. Aaron mentions two use-cases: - Part of a reservation in IDC is expressed as a Link which is then implemented on several physical links. This object has a LifeTime associated with it to express the duration of the reservation. - The Reservable bandwidth can be expressed in a similar way to describe available bandwidth at certain times. Jeroen also mentions the Virtual Machines on for example PlanetLab. These are reservable resources, with a certain lifetime associated with it. - Freek to write use case on bidirectional and unidirectional links: single fiber with two wavelengths in different directions. Freek has sent an email to the list describing a FttH use-case. This will be saved for a later date to check how the eventual schema stacks against use-cases. - We discuss the agenda for the OGF, we have three sessions: 1) NML - NSI session, to present our work to NSI. 2) Example discussion session: Topology recursion, VLAN descriptions and LifeTime 3) Overflow and writing. - Next call is in two weeks at the same time (16:00 UTC) Action points for next call: * Jeroen updates relations to camelCase * Jeroen to check definitions in schema document * Jeroen to fix the identifiers (sub)sections * Freek to check "at layer" relation and "Layer" object * Jerry to write use case on bidirectional and unidirectional links * Jerry to write usecase on NORDUnet being a geographical segregated network (NY and CPH), with possible restrictions between the two locations/networks * Jerry to write this down federated and sub-NSA as a use case.

1 0

Reminder, Conf call March 8
by Jeroen van der Ham 08 Mar '12

08 Mar '12

Hello, This is a reminder that we have a conference call today. NML conference call starts at: *** 16:00 UCT (17:00 CET, 8:00 Pacific, 11:00 Eastern). *** Action items from previous call: ============= * Freek to write use case on bidirectional and unidirectional links: single fiber with two wavelengths in different directions. * Jerry to write use case on bidirectional and unidirectional links * Jerry to write usecase on NORDUnet being a geographical segregated network (NY and CPH), with possible restrictions between the two locations/networks * Jerry to write this down federated and sub-NSA as a use case. * Freek and Jerry look at the exact definition of NML:Topology and NSI Network, and see if they can sync their definition * Jeroen to move schema figure and check definitions * Freek to check "at layer" relation and "Layer" object * Jeroen to fix the identifiers section * Jeroen to write the security considerations section (DONE!) * Freek to provide link on book identifiers (DONE!)

2 1