On 17-08-2012 16:37, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

Hi,

On 17 Aug 2012, at 14:57, Freek Dijkstra <freek.dijkstra@sara.nl> wrote:

I like NML to be extensible. For example, if some NML publisher likes to

add information that benefits monitoring or provisioning, that should be

possible.

A NML receiver should silently ignore this added information. However,

we also don't want a receiver to just accept anything. If there is some

obvious error in the NML, the receiver should still just reply with an

error message.

I am not entirely sure that we can reasonably make this distinction.

Regardless if we can or not (we can and in fact already do, by the way):
is it useful?

The alternative is that the receiver should accept anything, including
obvious errors in the NML.

That doesn't seem useful to me. Are you suggesting that accepting
obvious errornous NML is useful, or merely stating that while it's
useful you don't see how to make it happen?

And even if we can, without bloating the current schema into probably

twice its current size.

We already did that. You even wrote down the text yourself. So no, it
does not bloat it. Again, see this example:

In fact, the current document makes this distinction. To quote the text

on "hasService":

hasService relates a Network Object to a Service. This schema only

defines the meaning of:

• Port to AdaptationService, relating one server-layer Port to an

adaptation function

• Port to DeadaptationService, relating one server-layer Port to a

deadaptation function

• Node or Topology to SwitchingService, describing a switching

capability of that Node or Topology.