Hi, Richard suggested that we make a diagram of the complete examples. I've just done that (and found some errors through that). It's not completely cleaned up yet, but it should give a pretty good impression of what we currently have in the examples. Would it be useful to also include this in the doc? Jeroen.
On 13-03-2013 13:06, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Richard suggested that we make a diagram of the complete examples. I've just done that (and found some errors through that). It's not completely cleaned up yet, but it should give a pretty good impression of what we currently have in the examples.
Would it be useful to also include this in the doc?
I love it! Just looking at for a couple of seconds makes things clear for a user, and even for me, it brings up some questions, which I usually think is good. I'm pretty sure sure the reasons came forward because I now have a deeper understanding of the examples. And that just by staring at a picture for 10 seconds! N.B. The questions are: • Is the topology simple called "org" • Is the Node not part of the Topology? • So LinkA:XY runs from Port X to Port Y, and both Ports are both in Node A? • To make it even more odd: There is also a linkB:YZ that is in series just after LinkA:XY. So does that mean that LinkB:YZ is going through Node A (and is thus perhaps provided by NodeA:SwitchingSerivce? • What's this domainy_domainx, and why is it standing alone, not related to any Port? • Do the Ports and Links actually have an encoding? Should they? Freek
Hi, On 13 Mar 2013, at 13:28, Freek Dijkstra <Freek.Dijkstra@surfsara.nl> wrote:
N.B. The questions are: • Is the topology simple called "org"
The names in the picture are shortened, they all have the prefix "urn:ogf:network"example.net:2012:"
• Is the Node not part of the Topology?
The Topology example currently contains "…", so it's not shown what that means.
• So LinkA:XY runs from Port X to Port Y, and both Ports are both in Node A?
Apparently yes.
• To make it even more odd: There is also a linkB:YZ that is in series just after LinkA:XY. So does that mean that LinkB:YZ is going through Node A (and is thus perhaps provided by NodeA:SwitchingSerivce?
What makes you think that LinkB is going through NodeA? It probably departs from portY, but even that is not defined in the examples.
• What's this domainy_domainx, and why is it standing alone, not related to any Port?
Because that is the example of a LinkGroup :)
• Do the Ports and Links actually have an encoding? Should they?
In the examples they don't. The problem is that there are currently no encodings defined (that actually goes for the Label also!). Jeroen.
W dniu 2013-03-13 13:28, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
On 13-03-2013 13:06, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Richard suggested that we make a diagram of the complete examples. I've just done that (and found some errors through that). It's not completely cleaned up yet, but it should give a pretty good impression of what we currently have in the examples.
Would it be useful to also include this in the doc? I love it!
Just looking at for a couple of seconds makes things clear for a user, and even for me, it brings up some questions, which I usually think is good. I'm pretty sure sure the reasons came forward because I now have a deeper understanding of the examples. And that just by staring at a picture for 10 seconds!
N.B. The questions are: • Is the topology simple called "org" • Is the Node not part of the Topology? • So LinkA:XY runs from Port X to Port Y, and both Ports are both in Node A? • To make it even more odd: There is also a linkB:YZ that is in series just after LinkA:XY. So does that mean that LinkB:YZ is going through Node A (and is thus perhaps provided by NodeA:SwitchingSerivce? • What's this domainy_domainx, and why is it standing alone, not related to any Port? • Do the Ports and Links actually have an encoding? Should they?
Example snippets show how to use the structures defined in the schema. They are separate although naming is reused. We had complete examples but we decided to remove it because they were too big for the doc. I don't see the problem to again define a simple topology and split into example snippets. But we have to be careful to keep it simple. Roman
Freek _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
Hi, I think the general agreement is that it would be useful to add something like this to the doc to show how all the things fit together. We need to do just a few things to make this into a more coherent diagram though: * Topology contents The Topology currently contains "..." We should at least show that NodeA is part of the Topology, but then not include details of NodeA itself. * LinkA:XY & Port_y Right now the link is between Port_X and Port_Y, both are in NodeA. We can make this into a Crossconnect type Link, but then perhaps also add another example of a "regular" Link ? * PortGroup example The PortGroup example stands on its own right now. We can easily change that to represent Port_X's VLAN capabilities. I think we should change the name then, how about "port_x:out:vlans" or "port_x.vlans:out" ? Finally, we would have to add some text describing the diagram and explaining that it makes it into a complete example, but that's minor. Did I miss something? Jeroen.
participants (3)
-
Freek Dijkstra -
Jeroen van der Ham -
Roman Łapacz