Hi all These are the notes of the meeting that just terminated few minutes ago. Please send corrections to the mailing list if I got something wrong. In particular re-read point 3 on transitional links 'cause I am not sure I really got what people were saying. Best regards, Paola ******* Meeting notes NML-WG Thurs. Sep 24 2009 ******* Present: Gigi, Martin, Aaron, John, Jeff, Evangelos, Paola and Jeroen. Agenda items discussed: 1) OGF27 2) Current status of schema deliverable 3) Transitional links 4) Next meeting 1) OGF27 3 sessions requested. Currently on Tues. and Wed. morning. There is an outstanding request to move these sessions to the afternoon, so that NSI can be held in the morning. The last two sessions will focus on the _service_ and _adaptation_ elements in the schema. 2) Current status of schema deliverable Works is in progress: - Jeroen is incorporating changes mailed so far to the mailing list, - Freek is focusing on the identifiers and usecase sections - Jeroen will contact Lars as he is has been 'silent' for a while (Lars?) 3) Transitional links John, Guy, Jeroen and Freek had a call yesterday with ITU people. They discussed transitional links. Jeroen says there are three main usecases for the NML schema: (a) intra-domain provisioning, where detailed information is required by the provisioning system (b) monitoring applications (c) inter-domain path finding While the current schema covers well usecases (a) and (b), it is less suited for (c) as this requires aggregated/abstracted views. Evangelos proposes to use different identifiers for resources that are in the 'physical' and 'aggregated' topologies, with mapping withing the two sets of resources. Jeroen points out this might not work when dealing with multi-layer descriptions. Martin says that domain 'collapsing' to node is already possible in the current schema. A 'switching matrix' would be used to used to describe the capabilities of a domain, in a similar manner as it is used for a single node. The consensus is that we need to provide a usecase describing an aggregation/abstraction example. John thinks transitional links are necessary to describe connections between layers, and as such are needed by path finding apps. Jeroen and Martin say that transitional link map 1:1 to NML adaptations. They are an edge in the path finding graph. We cannot reach a consensus, so we agree that: - we need an usecase with multi-layer inter-domain path finding. This might (or not) prove John's point we _do_ need transitional links; - we will might touch on this subject again at OGF27 when discussing adapatations. 4) Next meeting. To be decided at OGF.