Hi all, We've discussed that we would like to prepare an abstract for the TERENA conference next year. The deadline for the extended abstracts (600-1200 words) is November 30th. I promised to write a structure for this abstract. I was thinking something like the following: Title: The Network Markup Language 1. Introdcution (general idea, bit of history, current status) 2. Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 3. Use-Cases of NML 3.1 Supporting Network Monitoring (Application in PerfSonar?) 3.2 Supporting Network Provisioning (Application in NSI) Other use-cases? 4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML) Who would like to contribute? What would you like to contribute on? Is there something missing in this structure that you think should be there? Jeroen.
On 20-11-2012 15:09, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
We've discussed that we would like to prepare an abstract for the TERENA conference next year. The deadline for the extended abstracts (600-1200 words) is November 30th.
I promised to write a structure for this abstract. I was thinking something like the following:> Title: The Network Markup Language
1. Introdcution (general idea, bit of history, current status)
2. Schema Explanation (short description of the schema)
3. Use-Cases of NML
3.1 Supporting Network Monitoring (Application in PerfSonar?)
3.2 Supporting Network Provisioning (Application in NSI)
Other use-cases?
4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Who would like to contribute? What would you like to contribute on? Is there something missing in this structure that you think should be there?
Jeroen, I like to contribute. My first question is if you like to focus on the standardization effort or the actual usage. The actual usage is yet slim, but it getting there. Second, do you like to turn this is in a full paper? In my experience 600-1200 words is so little you hardly have space to write any substantial like the above outline suggests. (though you can of course indicate that the actual paper will have this outline). Freek
Hi, On 20 Nov 2012, at 15:43, Freek Dijkstra <freek.dijkstra@sara.nl> wrote:
I like to contribute. My first question is if you like to focus on the standardization effort or the actual usage. The actual usage is yet slim, but it getting there.
I would like to focus on the effort and draw attention to the fact that we have a the document ready (by TERENA).
Second, do you like to turn this is in a full paper? In my experience 600-1200 words is so little you hardly have space to write any substantial like the above outline suggests. (though you can of course indicate that the actual paper will have this outline).
Turning it into a full paper would probably be a bit hard with the above focus. Although it may be something we could do for IEEE Network for example. Jeroen.
On 20-11-2012 15:50, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Turning it into a full paper would probably be a bit hard with the above focus. Although it may be something we could do for IEEE Network for example.
FYI, Jason is editor of a special issue of IEEE comsoc: http://www.comsoc.org/files/Publications/Magazines/ci/cfp/cfpcommag1113.htm but this is mostly about monitoring. Freek
Hi, On 20 Nov 2012, at 15:54, Freek Dijkstra <freek.dijkstra@sara.nl> wrote:
On 20-11-2012 15:50, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Turning it into a full paper would probably be a bit hard with the above focus. Although it may be something we could do for IEEE Network for example.
FYI, Jason is editor of a special issue of IEEE comsoc: http://www.comsoc.org/files/Publications/Magazines/ci/cfp/cfpcommag1113.htm but this is mostly about monitoring.
IEEE Network mostly has tutorial like papers I think, so I think that that would be a good fit. Jeroen.
Hi, I would stress the standardisation aspect. I've updated your structure a bit adding the requirements and standardisation sections that I think it would be good to have. Just a proposal to consider. 1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3, Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML) Cheers, Roman W dniu 2012-11-20 15:09, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
Hi all,
We've discussed that we would like to prepare an abstract for the TERENA conference next year. The deadline for the extended abstracts (600-1200 words) is November 30th.
I promised to write a structure for this abstract. I was thinking something like the following:
Title: The Network Markup Language
1. Introdcution (general idea, bit of history, current status)
2. Schema Explanation (short description of the schema)
3. Use-Cases of NML
3.1 Supporting Network Monitoring (Application in PerfSonar?)
3.2 Supporting Network Provisioning (Application in NSI)
Other use-cases?
4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Who would like to contribute? What would you like to contribute on? Is there something missing in this structure that you think should be there?
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
Hi, Very good idea. Any particular sections you would like to contribute on? Jeroen. On 21 Nov 2012, at 10:54, Roman Łapacz <romradz@man.poznan.pl> wrote:
Hi,
I would stress the standardisation aspect. I've updated your structure a bit adding the requirements and standardisation sections that I think it would be good to have. Just a proposal to consider.
1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3, Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Cheers, Roman
W dniu 2012-11-20 15:09, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
Hi all,
We've discussed that we would like to prepare an abstract for the TERENA conference next year. The deadline for the extended abstracts (600-1200 words) is November 30th.
I promised to write a structure for this abstract. I was thinking something like the following:
Title: The Network Markup Language
1. Introdcution (general idea, bit of history, current status)
2. Schema Explanation (short description of the schema)
3. Use-Cases of NML
3.1 Supporting Network Monitoring (Application in PerfSonar?)
3.2 Supporting Network Provisioning (Application in NSI)
Other use-cases?
4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Who would like to contribute? What would you like to contribute on? Is there something missing in this structure that you think should be there?
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
W dniu 2012-11-21 11:08, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
Hi,
Very good idea. Any particular sections you would like to contribute on?
I could take Requirements and Schema Explanations. Of course I count on your improvements after giving you my drafts. Roman
Jeroen.
On 21 Nov 2012, at 10:54, Roman Łapacz <romradz@man.poznan.pl> wrote:
Hi,
I would stress the standardisation aspect. I've updated your structure a bit adding the requirements and standardisation sections that I think it would be good to have. Just a proposal to consider.
1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3, Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Cheers, Roman
W dniu 2012-11-20 15:09, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
Hi all,
We've discussed that we would like to prepare an abstract for the TERENA conference next year. The deadline for the extended abstracts (600-1200 words) is November 30th.
I promised to write a structure for this abstract. I was thinking something like the following:
Title: The Network Markup Language
1. Introdcution (general idea, bit of history, current status)
2. Schema Explanation (short description of the schema)
3. Use-Cases of NML
3.1 Supporting Network Monitoring (Application in PerfSonar?)
3.2 Supporting Network Provisioning (Application in NSI)
Other use-cases?
4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Who would like to contribute? What would you like to contribute on? Is there something missing in this structure that you think should be there?
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
Hi, can we agree to provide the drafts of all sections by Wed? We will have two more days for updates. What's the assignment of other parts? Roman W dniu 2012-11-21 11:21, Roman Łapacz pisze:
W dniu 2012-11-21 11:08, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
Hi,
Very good idea. Any particular sections you would like to contribute on?
I could take Requirements and Schema Explanations. Of course I count on your improvements after giving you my drafts.
Roman
Jeroen.
On 21 Nov 2012, at 10:54, Roman Łapacz <romradz@man.poznan.pl> wrote:
Hi,
I would stress the standardisation aspect. I've updated your structure a bit adding the requirements and standardisation sections that I think it would be good to have. Just a proposal to consider.
1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3, Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Cheers, Roman
W dniu 2012-11-20 15:09, Jeroen van der Ham pisze:
Hi all,
We've discussed that we would like to prepare an abstract for the TERENA conference next year. The deadline for the extended abstracts (600-1200 words) is November 30th.
I promised to write a structure for this abstract. I was thinking something like the following:
Title: The Network Markup Language
1. Introdcution (general idea, bit of history, current status)
2. Schema Explanation (short description of the schema)
3. Use-Cases of NML
3.1 Supporting Network Monitoring (Application in PerfSonar?)
3.2 Supporting Network Provisioning (Application in NSI)
Other use-cases?
4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
Who would like to contribute? What would you like to contribute on? Is there something missing in this structure that you think should be there?
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
_______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
Hi, On 26 Nov 2012, at 13:40, Roman Łapacz <romradz@man.poznan.pl> wrote:
can we agree to provide the drafts of all sections by Wed? We will have two more days for updates. What's the assignment of other parts?
Yes, seems like a good idea. I can describe the use-case in NSI and also provide a description of the OGF and its standardization. So: 1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. (RL) Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3. (RL) Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. (JH) Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. (JH) A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 4. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML) Jeroen.
On 26-11-2012 14:43, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. (RL) Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3. (RL) Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. (JH) Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. (JH) A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 6. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
I'm happy to write or contribute to 1, 2, 4 and/or 6. Let me know. Which of these shall I do? I have a preference for 1, 2 and 4. Freek
Hi, On 26 Nov 2012, at 14:46, Freek Dijkstra <freek.dijkstra@sara.nl> wrote:
On 26-11-2012 14:43, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. (RL) Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3. (RL) Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. (JH) Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. (JH) A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 6. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML)
I'm happy to write or contribute to 1, 2, 4 and/or 6. Let me know. Which of these shall I do? I have a preference for 1, 2 and 4.
1 is unclaimed so please do. 2 you can coordinate with Roman perhaps? If you can do 4 I can also do 6. Jeroen.
W dniu 2012-11-26 14:46, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
On 26-11-2012 14:43, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. (RL) Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3. (RL) Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. (JH) Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. (JH) A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 6. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML) I'm happy to write or contribute to 1, 2, 4 and/or 6. Let me know. Which of these shall I do? I have a preference for 1, 2 and 4.
Freek, I'll send you 2) tomorrow morning (I already have something). To all of you: what do you think to complicate :) the tile? A proposal: The Network Markup Language (NML) – A Standardised Network Topology Abstraction for Inter-domain and Cross-layer Network Applications Roman
Freek
2) attached Roman W dniu 2012-11-26 14:59, Roman Łapacz pisze:
W dniu 2012-11-26 14:46, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
On 26-11-2012 14:43, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
1. Introduction (general idea, why a standardized topology desc is needed, bit of history, etc.) 2. (RL) Requirements (what the NML WG wanted to achieve: abstraction, multi-layer, multi-domain, extensions allowed, independent of the format - XML, RNC, OWL, others, etc.) 3. (RL) Schema Explanation (short description of the schema) 4. (JH) Standardisation under OGF (status and short description of OGF) 5. (JH) A use case of NML - Supporting Network Provisioning (topology in NSI) 6. Future Work (describe briefly plans for the future of NML) I'm happy to write or contribute to 1, 2, 4 and/or 6. Let me know. Which of these shall I do? I have a preference for 1, 2 and 4.
Freek, I'll send you 2) tomorrow morning (I already have something).
To all of you: what do you think to complicate :) the tile? A proposal: The Network Markup Language (NML) – A Standardised Network Topology Abstraction for Inter-domain and Cross-layer Network Applications
Roman
Freek
participants (3)
-
Freek Dijkstra -
Jeroen van der Ham -
Roman Łapacz