Hi, I would stress the standardisation aspect. I've updated your structure a bit adding the requirements and standardisation sections that I think it would be good to have. Just a proposal to consider. 1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3, Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML) Cheers, Roman W dniu 2012-11-20 15:09, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
Hi all,
We've discussed that we would like to prepare an abstract for the TERENA conference next year. The deadline for the extended abstracts (600-1200 words) is November 30th.
I promised to write a structure for this abstract. I was thinking something like the following:
Title: The Network Markup Language
1. Introdcution (general idea, bit of history, current status)
2. Schema Explanation (short description of the schema)
3. Use-Cases of NML
3.1 Supporting Network Monitoring (Application in PerfSonar?)
3.2 Supporting Network Provisioning (Application in NSI)
Other use-cases?
4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Who would like to contribute? What would you like to contribute on? Is there something missing in this structure that you think should be there?
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg