Hello, Apologies for the late announcement, but we have a call scheduled for later today (14:00 UTC, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EST, 7:00 PST) Call: +1-734-615-7474 or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0186145 Agenda: - OGF 27 schedule - Status of the Schema draft - schema section - identifiers section - use-case section - Update on Transitional Link issue Jeroen.
Jeroen & All; I will not be able to make it. -jason
Apologies for the late announcement, but we have a call scheduled for later today (14:00 UTC, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EST, 7:00 PST)
Call: +1-734-615-7474 or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0186145
Agenda: - OGF 27 schedule - Status of the Schema draft - schema section - identifiers section - use-case section - Update on Transitional Link issue
Jeroen.
Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Apologies for the late announcement, but we have a call scheduled for later today
I do sincerely apologize, I had not put this in my agenda, and made a double appointment. It is unlikely that I make it in time. Sorry!
Agenda: - OGF 27 schedule - Status of the Schema draft - schema section - identifiers section - use-case section - Update on Transitional Link issue
On the OGF 27 schedule agenda item: - the NSI asked to reverse the NSI and NML meetings, so that NSI in before the NML. This has been asked to Joel Replonge, and hopefully will make it in the agenda. - In the call, please decide on an agenda, and report to the list (I will then make sure to copy that to the agenda on the OGF website). I propose: session #1: update presentations + input from NSI working group. session #2: discussion on service concept and its schema representation. session #3: discussion on adaptation concept and its schema representation. On the schema status agenda item: - To have a good discussion at the OGF, is someone willing to volunteer to write some preliminary text on the agreed upon topics and send that to the list? Perhaps just copying it form the current document is a good starting point for the discussion. I am afraid I don't volunteer for this, I like to work on the following: On the identifier section status agenda item: - As said, I did not have time to make the identifiers sections so far. - However, I now should have that time. Unless someone else like to pick that (which would be great), you can make it a task for me till the next call. On the transistional link agenda time: - My personal opinion is that we should concentrate on the schema draft, and only shortly talk about G.800 concept until they are really needed. In this case, it may be needed by the NSI, so I'm fine with the discussion. I just don't want the NML to be a G.800-reading club. (No matter how much I would enjoy that myself ;-) ). Regards, Freek
(14:00 UTC, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EST, 7:00 PST)
PS: the corrects "summer time"/"daylight saving time" for EST and PST are EDT and PDT, which are currently in effect.
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.
Paola Grosso wrote:
- we need an usecase with multi-layer inter-domain path finding. This might (or not) prove John's point we _do_ need transitional links;
Well, there is a multi-layer inter-domain path finding use case. (sorry, but yes, I'm plugging my thesis once again. Sorry...). It does path finding without transitional links. The real question of course is what algorithm is used for path finding. I defined one algorithm; a colleague, Fernando Kuipers Delft University, proposed another one. Both algorithms were exact. Fernando's algorithm required all topology information in advance, and in practice, so did mine. Of course, that makes neither algorithm acceptable, so I'm pretty sure inter-domain path finding will end up with a heuristic algorithm. I'm saying that the use case is pointless as long as it is not defined what algorithm is to be used. There is an algorithm that does not require transitional links, and it is likely that there is an algorithm that does require transitional links. Since defining an algorithm is well out of scope of NML, whoever does make these algorithms should suggest the use case. Regards, Freek
Paola Grosso wrote:
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.
Joel Replonge reported yesterday that the deadline for the printed agenda is this morning, so I put in the following agenda: 1. http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1750 The first session will contain status update presentations, as well as interaction with the NSI-WG. It is expected that the NSI-WG sessions earlier today will yield input for the NML-WG, and that will be discussed in this session. 2. http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1779 This second session will discuss the semantics and schema representation of the "adaptation" concept. 3. http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1780 This third and final session will discuss the semantics and schema representation of the "service" concept. The online agendas contain a link to the latest version of the deliverable document. If you have not done so, please print it and read it on your way to the OGF. I like to call on input for these sessions. Jeroen, could you give an update presentation on the schema? In particular changes since last OGF. Everyone else, I like to start the 2nd and 3rd sessions with max. 3 proposal presentation for a definition and schema representation of "adaptation" and "service". Each presentation max. 8 minutes. Ideally, we have 3 sets of proposals and have an hour to discuss them. I don't expect 3 clearly outlined proposals, so even if you have a general idea and are willing to make a drawing at the white board on the spot, I very much welcome you on stage. Finally, if make sure to upload any meeting material you have or create (presentations, notes) to the gridforge website: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.nml-wg/docman... Of course, you can always mail your presentation to me or Martin as well. Regards, Freek
Paola, As per agenda item 1, the NSI and NML working group time slots on Tuesday have now been swapped. Guy -----Original Message----- From: Paola Grosso [mailto:p.grosso@uva.nl] Sent: 24 September 2009 16:19 To: Network Markup Language Working Group Subject: [Nml-wg] Meeting notes Sep.24 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. _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
participants (5)
-
Freek Dijkstra
-
Guy Roberts
-
Jason Zurawski
-
Jeroen van der Ham
-
Paola Grosso