The more interesting problem is that the term VLAN needs to be qualified depending on the Ethernet service being offered. For example, CE-VLAN (Customer Edge VLAN) or P-VLAN (Provider VLAN) or S-VLAN (Service VLAN), On 2012-07-12, at 7:38 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Regarding the syntax:
<nml:label labeltype="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/ethernet/vlan">1780</nml:label>
On 12-07-2012 13:25, Aaron Brown wrote:
This syntax seems reasonable. My only minor niggle is i'd prefer it be 'type' instead of 'labelType' since it's an attribute of a label construct, and adding 'label' to it seems redundant.
Henrik suggested labelType, because "type" was an overloaded word.
I also don't like "type", because I may later propose to introduce the distinction between resource label, source label and destination label. That's also a "type".
I actually went over the GMPLS tables at www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xml to find a better name, but got confused by all the parameters there (heck, I wasn't even sure that parameter I should use for a simple VLAN). So I used Henrik's suggestion.
Thinking about it, what is meant here is the "technology" or "encoding" of the label. A quick search yieled that "label encoding" is an accepted term, so I propose:
<nml:label encoding="http://schemas.ogf.org/nml/2013/10/ethernet/vlan">1780</nml:label>
A minor drawback: we just started using "encoding" to specify the technology of a Port of Link. E.g. Ethernet frames. That may be confusing. Should be change that to "layer" or can we keep "encoding" there?
Freek _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg