Soliciting Public Comments on "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks"
All, Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010. My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part. With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra
Hi, to me the text about Topology Service (TS) in section 3 describes Lookup Service (LS), not TS (Jason, Martin, what do you think?). I remember it was discussed somewhere that TS may use LS to get registered topology data but still LS is not TS in the general concept of pS. regards, Roman Freek Dijkstra wrote:
All,
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part.
With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
Hi Roman; This section is describing the topology service produced in perfSONAR-PS (info here: http://www.internet2.edu/performance/pS-PS/topology.html), which is similar to an LS in operation but operates on the topology schema elements. Thanks; -jason
Hi,
to me the text about Topology Service (TS) in section 3 describes Lookup Service (LS), not TS (Jason, Martin, what do you think?). I remember it was discussed somewhere that TS may use LS to get registered topology data but still LS is not TS in the general concept of pS.
regards, Roman
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
All,
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part.
With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra
Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
This section is describing the topology service produced in perfSONAR-PS (info here: http://www.internet2.edu/performance/pS-PS/topology.html), which is similar to an LS in operation but operates on the topology schema elements.
OK. This may be a bit misleading if someone knows general concept of pS infrastructure, not certain implementation (in this case ps-pS). Roman
Thanks;
-jason
Hi,
to me the text about Topology Service (TS) in section 3 describes Lookup Service (LS), not TS (Jason, Martin, what do you think?). I remember it was discussed somewhere that TS may use LS to get registered topology data but still LS is not TS in the general concept of pS.
regards, Roman
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
All,
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part.
With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra
Hi Roman;
Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
This section is describing the topology service produced in perfSONAR-PS (info here: http://www.internet2.edu/performance/pS-PS/topology.html), which is similar to an LS in operation but operates on the topology schema elements.
OK. This may be a bit misleading if someone knows general concept of pS infrastructure, not certain implementation (in this case ps-pS).
This is a part of the perfSONAR infrastructure, the component has been described in the original architecture documents and the existence of this service is not new (was developed in conjunction with DICE control plane activities). Are you seeing this as misleading because there is not an MDM implementation that matches functionality? There are several services that are in MDM that are not in pSPS and vice versa, the common thread being they are all 'perfSONAR' since they speak the protocols. Thanks; -jason
Roman
Thanks;
-jason
Hi,
to me the text about Topology Service (TS) in section 3 describes Lookup Service (LS), not TS (Jason, Martin, what do you think?). I remember it was discussed somewhere that TS may use LS to get registered topology data but still LS is not TS in the general concept of pS.
regards, Roman
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
All,
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part.
With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra
Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
This section is describing the topology service produced in perfSONAR-PS (info here: http://www.internet2.edu/performance/pS-PS/topology.html), which is similar to an LS in operation but operates on the topology schema elements.
OK. This may be a bit misleading if someone knows general concept of pS infrastructure, not certain implementation (in this case ps-pS).
This is a part of the perfSONAR infrastructure, the component has been described in the original architecture documents and the existence of this service is not new (was developed in conjunction with DICE control plane activities).
Are you seeing this as misleading because there is not an MDM implementation that matches functionality? There are several services that are in MDM that are not in pSPS and vice versa, the common thread being they are all 'perfSONAR' since they speak the protocols.
I'm not comparing the implementations. I wasn't aware that TS can have register functionality like LS. Roman
Thanks;
-jason
Roman
Thanks;
-jason
Hi,
to me the text about Topology Service (TS) in section 3 describes Lookup Service (LS), not TS (Jason, Martin, what do you think?). I remember it was discussed somewhere that TS may use LS to get registered topology data but still LS is not TS in the general concept of pS.
regards, Roman
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
All,
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part.
With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra
Hi All, please find my comments on the OGF portal: http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327 regards, Maciej W dniu 2010-01-16 02:04, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
All,
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
My apologies to Paola Grosso for the very long delay (over a year) between the final editing and this public comments. This was mostly due to negligence and unfamiliarity of procedures on my part.
With kind regards, Freek Dijkstra _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
There has been one comment, by Maciej Łabędzki. Editors, would it be useful to make a two minor changes to accommodate the suggestion by Maciej? Maciej, this document is written about 2 years ago, so my personal opinion would be not to put too much effort in it. However, the change seems minor, so I'm fine with it. I leave it up to Paola Grosso, the editor, to decide. Regards, Freek
Hi Freek Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
There has been one comment, by Maciej Łabędzki.
Thanks Maciej!
Editors, would it be useful to make a two minor changes to accommodate the suggestion by Maciej?
As it is a minor modification we can certainly include this in in the document.
Maciej, this document is written about 2 years ago, so my personal opinion would be not to put too much effort in it. However, the change seems minor, so I'm fine with it.
I leave it up to Paola Grosso, the editor, to decide.
I will make a new version of the document. I will send it to Maciej to see that I actually have correctly updated the text, and to you and Martin (as co-chairs). Then I assume this can go through. And not be again up for review. Best regards, Paola
Paola Grosso wrote:
I leave it up to Paola Grosso, the editor, to decide.
I will make a new version of the document. I will send it to Maciej to see that I actually have correctly updated the text, and to you and Martin (as co-chairs).
I just changed the text and uploaded it to http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/viewDocument/projects.nml-wg/docman.... (My apology for overstepping my bounds, since you are the editor, not me. However, I just wanted to get this out). Maciej, Paola, can you verify these changes are correct? These were my changes: End of 4.1: Was:
The success of cNIS depends upon the efficiency of automatic data collection, population and verification. A plug-in architecture for this is currently under development.
Becomes:
The success of cNIS depends upon the efficiency of automatic data collection, population and verification. cNIS has plug-ins to collect IP, Ethernet and SDH topology information. Plug-ins are continuously improved and user have the possibility to develop their own plug-ins.
Start of 4.4: Was:
cNIS provides two different types of programmatic interfaces (API): • A management interface for system users to perform various administrative tasks and visualization. • An operational interface for external applications.
Becomes:
cNIS provides one graphic user interface (GUI) and three different types of programmatic interfaces (API): • One graphical user interface, the cNIS manager application to perform administrative tasks and visualization; • Three web service interfaces (topology service, AutoBAHN service and pathfinder) to access the cNIS data repository.
Regards, Freek
It's OK. Thank you. regards, Maciej W dniu 2010-02-15 10:58, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
Paola Grosso wrote:
I leave it up to Paola Grosso, the editor, to decide.
I will make a new version of the document. I will send it to Maciej to see that I actually have correctly updated the text, and to you and Martin (as co-chairs).
I just changed the text and uploaded it to http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/viewDocument/projects.nml-wg/docman....
(My apology for overstepping my bounds, since you are the editor, not me. However, I just wanted to get this out).
Maciej, Paola, can you verify these changes are correct?
These were my changes:
End of 4.1:
Was:
The success of cNIS depends upon the efficiency of automatic data collection, population and verification. A plug-in architecture for this is currently under development.
Becomes:
The success of cNIS depends upon the efficiency of automatic data collection, population and verification. cNIS has plug-ins to collect IP, Ethernet and SDH topology information. Plug-ins are continuously improved and user have the possibility to develop their own plug-ins.
Start of 4.4:
Was:
cNIS provides two different types of programmatic interfaces (API): • A management interface for system users to perform various administrative tasks and visualization. • An operational interface for external applications.
Becomes:
cNIS provides one graphic user interface (GUI) and three different types of programmatic interfaces (API): • One graphical user interface, the cNIS manager application to perform administrative tasks and visualization; • Three web service interfaces (topology service, AutoBAHN service and pathfinder) to access the cNIS data repository.
Regards, Freek
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
Our first deliverable, "Network topology descriptions in hybrid networks", is now soliciting public comments. If you have any comments, or know anyone who like to comment on this document, please do so at http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=327. The official public comment period ends Feb 15, 2010.
If there are any more comments, remarks, please make them now. Paola, there was another comment, made by the GFD Editor, Greg Newby:
My one structural request is to rework the references. Most are not actually references, and should appear as in-text citations. GFD-C.152 has guidance on this.
See: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6433?nav=1 Could you look into this? I presume that if that is done, we can upload the final-final-final version to both http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6433 and http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc14679, and it will be published. Thanks, Freek
Hi
My one structural request is to rework the references. Most are not actually references, and should appear as in-text citations. GFD-C.152 has guidance on this.
See: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6433?nav=1
Could you look into this?
Sure, I looked at the document Greg refers to. We need to move all URL and not permanent document references to the text. I will make a version 13 of the document. Best regards, Paola
participants (5)
-
Freek Dijkstra -
Jason Zurawski -
Maciej Łabędzki -
Paola Grosso -
Roman Lapacz