On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Hello,
Just out of curiosity, how much change is still acceptable for current implementations?
We've had two discussions now where the argument has come up that there are currently implementations that do things a certain way, and that we therefore should be hesitant to change.
Now I'm certainly not planning a major overhaul of NML, and things have been reasonably static for a while, but as far as I know we have not reached a status of complete agreement. To me, we're still in a status where implementations based on NML are taking a risk.
Changing the name of one of the primary elements in NML 'Port' is a major overhaul.
For example, I'm currently working on an implementation of topologies cooperating with the NSI plugfest. This implementation is deliberately not using the NML namespace, because I don't want developers to feel that we've reached agreement yet. Things may still change, and if they would, it should not be a big deal to them.
That's too bad. I think it would have been much better to use it so you could find out if there were any deficiencies and have real-world experience as to the issues we are discussing. If there were real problems that could not be addressed in a straight forward way, that is a reason to change the schema. The endless discussions of Port vs Interface that have gone on for 5 years now are just a distraction. I sometimes think we would have been better off to come up with completely bogus names for concepts. A 'Foo' is connected to a 'Bar'... would that have been better? jeff
Jeroen. _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg