Could you describe the different views of service and adaptation? I also thought we had lively conversation but hoped that we would come out with consensus in the long run. Since the meeting I have attempted to lay out some use cases that are of interest to NSI at least, and almost all of them have adaptation as part of the case. This has changed my thinking some, in that it seems to me now adaptations are part of network topology, not just services. In particular, just as nodes and network groups might have ports, they might also have adaptations. The peculiar thing about adaptations as opposed to other services (it seems to me) is that they are required to stitch together a connection consisting of segments from different services. My preference for this would be to try to work it out before dropping it. It seems important to have it - at least adaptations - for defining network topology that can be used to create ete circuits. John On Jun 3, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Hello,
We have certainly had a lively discussion again at this OGF, and it is now clear that we do not have consensus regarding the service and adaptation elements. Would it be an idea to leave service and adaptation out of the schema for now and try to make a first standard out of the rest? That is what we originally had in mind for the first deliverable anyway.
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg