January 2013 - Nsi-wg - lists.ogf.org

Re: [Nsi-wg] Issue 5 in ogf-nsi-project: Query on requester interface - is this needed?
by ogf-nsi-project＠googlecode.com 22 May '13

22 May '13

Comment #7 on issue 5 by imo...(a)gmail.com: Query on requester interface - is this needed? http://code.google.com/p/ogf-nsi-project/issues/detail?id=5 This discussion was not concluded, but I will capture the thoughts as were shared on the call: 1. Query as a separate WSDL was discussed, issue 22 has also been opened for this 2. The main use-case was monitoring or management agents that might not be NSAs. Unanswered questions are: a. Can query work if the entities querying are not NSA agents? b. Should query be a separate WSDL in any case? c. Which credentials - user credentials or peer relationships when walking the service tree? 3. There was support on the call for the need for query in both directions whether it be commercial networks or research networks scenario. This discussion was not deemed important for 1.0SC and resolution postponed till another date Inder

1 2

Issue 55 in ogf-nsi-project: correlationId is unneeded and complicates implementation significantly
by ogf-nsi-project＠googlecode.com 01 Apr '13

01 Apr '13

Status: Accepted Owner: ---- Labels: Type-Review Priority-Medium FoundInVersion-1.0 FixedInVersion-1.1 New issue 55 by thost...(a)gmail.com: correlationId is unneeded and complicates implementation significantly http://code.google.com/p/ogf-nsi-project/issues/detail?id=55 Description of Issue: The correlationId attribute in the WSDL messages is unneeded. Furthermore it requires correct implementations to persistently keep track of the correlationsIds of active requests. Discussion of Issue: The WSDL adds a correlationId to track the correspondence between a request and the subsequent update for the status. However this correspondence is unneeded as the request already contains information about the connection in question. However having the correlationId requires both the requester and provider to keep a persistent (as in on-disk) record of currently active requests, in order to be crash and restart safe, i.e., the service must be able to respond to requests that came before it crashed/restarted. The correlationId also means that state updates are not idempotent as the client can only receive a request (state update) once. However it cannot be guaranties that a message with a state update will only be send once due to the coordination of message dispatching and updating this information persistently, where there will always be a window which can lead to inconsistency, where the message must be retransmitted. Having to keep track of requests in this way, is called a state-full protocol (note that this does not mean a non state-full protocol doesn't have any state), and is usually considered a bad idea do implementation complexity and poor scalability in high-performance systems (arguably this is not what we have though), as it makes load balancing and redundancy significantly more tricky. Furthermore it must be remembered that not all requests will have a callback. E.g., a provision before start time (i.e., auto-provision) followed by subsequent terminate request, will result in a callback for terminate, but not for the provision request. Here the client must then clear all pending correlationIds, complicating the implementation (the client side issues are simple though). All this is further complicated by the fact that we haven't established if it is the provider or requester which is responsible for ensuring that correct connection state is updated. Resolution of Issue: Remove correlationId from the WSDL. This will make the state update messages (reserveConfirmed, etc.) idempotent, meaning they can be repeated. The requester will then update any state references about the remote connection to fit with the last received message (this also has problems, but none that doesn't exist in the current protocol).

1 3

Re: [Nsi-wg] Issue 41 in ogf-nsi-project: Do we replace the replyTo field with a topology/NSA configuration lookup?
by ogf-nsi-project＠googlecode.com 05 Mar '13

05 Mar '13

Comment #3 on issue 41 by takahiro...(a)gmail.com: Do we replace the replyTo field with a topology/NSA configuration lookup? http://code.google.com/p/ogf-nsi-project/issues/detail?id=41 I want to use the replyTo field. Currently, all NSA act as requester and provider. In this case, we are able to look up the csProviderEndpoint of requesters easily. However, in near future, some NSA act as only a requester, e.g. PerfSONAR and AutoEarth. It is difficult to describe and manage all requester endpoints as same as provider ones. Moreover, it causes a high barrier to publish new requesters. Therefore, a requester endpoint should be obtained using the replyTo field in the SOAP message payload.

1 7

Overly complex discovery WSDL
by Henrik Thostrup Jensen 04 Mar '13

04 Mar '13

Hi I've been looking at the discovery WSDL, and was a bit amazed with how complicated it turned up being. Now I have not been very active in NSI for the last couple of months, and have missed a couple of meeting, but I think we've ended up with something a lot more complex than what we discussed in Oxford and the mailing lists. For the request it looks like this: queryNsaRequest :: QueryNsaRequestType queryNsaRequest :: RequestType filter :: FilterType * nsaId :: NsaIdType * serviceType :: xsd:string * This is my own notation. Sorry if it is tricky to read. For the request it possibly to define summary of detailed request, but I haven't found any documentation on what should be returned for what. Secondly it is possible to have multiple filters, each specifying multiple nsaIds and serviceTypes. The parameters for each filter should be ORed, however there does not appear to be any documentation for how to deal with multiple filters. It also appears to be complete and utterly overkill as most NSAs will host 2 or 3 services. Now, for the response: queryNsaResponse :: QueryNsaResponseType discovery :: NsaDiscoveryType * # nsaId # softwareVersion # startTime # currentTime services :: ServicesType * service :: ServiceType #other :: any description :: xsd:string versions :: VersionsType * version :: VersionType # name # version # endpoint # wsdl # url # other :: any other :: any * capabilities :: CapabilitiesType * capability ft:TypeValuePairType # type :: xsd:string ! # targetNamespace :: xsd:anyURI value :: xsd:string * other :: any * Here we are dealing with a datastructure potentially 9 levels deep. Arguably, some of this is due to the ackward way XML/WSDL handles lists, but there are still 4 levels of nested lists. I won't go into any details here. I am not trying to do a witch-hunt on John here. In fact he may just have been listening to everyone, but what we ended up with here is pretty bad, and is in my opion very far from what we discussed in Oxford. I think we need to setup some review of WSDLs as well in order to ensure that these things do not spin out of control like this. Anyways, something to talk about tomorrow :-). Best regards, Henrik Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at nordu.net> Software Developer, NORDUnet

2 3

Do we allow one NSA (by URL) to act for multiple networks?
by John MacAuley 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

Peoples, I pulled together a few slides to capture the discussion and illustrated the possible deployment models. John.

3 4

Topology Exchange format
by Jeroen van der Ham 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

Hi all, Yesterday we've had a short discussion on the call regarding the topology interchange syntax for NSI. We need to make a decision on this soon, because the implementers need it. Before we get to the options let me make a few things clear: - This is not about the terminology for the topology representation. As a group we've basically reached consensus on the extensions on NML that are required for NSI. I am currently writing these down and will soon send that doc to the list. - This is not about the Topology Service itself. The exact working of the Topology Service still needs to be defined. The requirements of that are currently being written down in another document, after which we can have a coherent discussion about the implementation. - All options listed are valid NML + NSI extensions, and all represent the same abstract models. NML allows for different syntax representations of its model. We have been using different formats for the AutoGOLE demonstration, but this is hurting the implementors since it is not clear which one they should support. With that out of the way, the three possibilities are below: - Plain XML, a direct codification of the NML & NSI concepts into XML. This has not been used so far. - OWL RDF/XML, an RDF representation in XML. This has been used with the DTOX format in the NSIv1 demo, and the NSI format has also been available for the NSIv2 demo, although only used by OpenDRAC I believe. - Notation3, a terser RDF representation. This has been made available since the NSIv2 demo, and used by many different implementations. We should decide on at least one format that must be supported by all implementations. We can also make the other syntaxes optional, if we have a good mechanism to describe the supported options. Jeroen.

2 3

NSI sessions at OGF37
by Guy Roberts 01 Feb '13

01 Feb '13

Hello All, I have been told that we can get extra sessions at OGF37 - I have now requested 6 and I can increase this if necessary. So far I have asked for the sessions to be on Monday and Tuesday - I note that there is workshop on federated ID/AA on Monday, is anyone interested in attending this? If we want to keep Monday free for the workshop then we may need to shift a few sessions to Sunday or Wednesday. If you are planning to attend, could you please let me know if you would prefer Wednesday or Sunday sessions? Thanks, Guy _____________________________________________________________________ Guy Roberts PhD Senior Transport Network Architect DANTE Cambridge, UK +44 1223 371316 DANTE is the project co-ordinator and operator of GÉANT, the high-speed pan-European research and education network that is transforming the way researchers collaborate. Learn more at: www.geant.net<http://www.geant.net/> Like us on: www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork<http://www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork> Follow us at: www.twitter.com/GEANTnews<http://www.twitter.com/GEANTnews> DANTE is the trading name of Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe Limited registered in England & Wales. Registration Number 2806796. Registered Office - 9400 Garsington Road, Oxford Business Park, Oxford OX4 2HN. _____________________________________________________________________

5 4

minutes from yesterday's NSI conf call
by Guy Roberts 31 Jan '13

31 Jan '13

.... are available here: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/nsi-wg?folder_id=6529 _____________________________________________________________________ Guy Roberts PhD Senior Transport Network Architect DANTE Cambridge, UK +44 1223 371316 DANTE is the project co-ordinator and operator of GÉANT, the high-speed pan-European research and education network that is transforming the way researchers collaborate. Learn more at: www.geant.net<http://www.geant.net/> Like us on: www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork<http://www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork> Follow us at: www.twitter.com/GEANTnews<http://www.twitter.com/GEANTnews> DANTE is the trading name of Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe Limited registered in England & Wales. Registration Number 2806796. Registered Office - 9400 Garsington Road, Oxford Business Park, Oxford OX4 2HN. _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

FW: orientation
by Guy Roberts 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

For discussion today... From: Guy Roberts Sent: 23 January 2013 17:42 To: Henrik Thostrup Jensen (htj(a)nordu.net) Cc: nsi-wg(a)ogf.org Subject: orientation Henrik, Looking up my documentation on orientation I see that I came up with this definition: Orientation · Orientation attribute is used to assign a direction to a bidirectional STP to remove ambiguity when performing path computation. Orientation type is ingress or egress. Ingress/Egress is relative to the Network. See the attached document for discussion, but I think that we can drop the orientation attribute as there are other ways of solving the problem. Guy _____________________________________________________________________ Guy Roberts PhD Senior Transport Network Architect DANTE Cambridge, UK +44 1223 371316 DANTE is the project co-ordinator and operator of GÉANT, the high-speed pan-European research and education network that is transforming the way researchers collaborate. Learn more at: www.geant.net<http://www.geant.net/> Like us on: www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork<http://www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork> Follow us at: www.twitter.com/GEANTnews<http://www.twitter.com/GEANTnews> DANTE is the trading name of Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe Limited registered in England & Wales. Registration Number 2806796. Registered Office - 9400 Garsington Road, Oxford Business Park, Oxford OX4 2HN. _____________________________________________________________________

1 0

today's NSI conf call
by Guy Roberts 30 Jan '13

30 Jan '13

The following is dial-in information for Wednesday's NSI call, time: 7:00 PDT 10:00 EDT, 15:00 GMT, 16:00 CET, 24:00 JST 1. Dial Toll-Free Number: 866-740-1260 (U.S. & Canada) 2. International participants dial: Toll Number: 303-248-0285 Or International Toll-Free Number: http://www.readytalk.com/intl 3. Enter 7-digit access code 8937606, followed by "#" Agenda: · TK: Message handling · GR: orientation attribute · JM: SOAP versions · Any other business _____________________________________________________________________ Guy Roberts PhD Senior Transport Network Architect DANTE Cambridge, UK +44 1223 371316 DANTE is the project co-ordinator and operator of GÉANT, the high-speed pan-European research and education network that is transforming the way researchers collaborate. Learn more at: www.geant.net<http://www.geant.net/> Like us on: www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork<http://www.facebook.com/GEANTnetwork> Follow us at: www.twitter.com/GEANTnews<http://www.twitter.com/GEANTnews> DANTE is the trading name of Delivery of Advanced Network Technology to Europe Limited registered in England & Wales. Registration Number 2806796. Registered Office - 9400 Garsington Road, Oxford Business Park, Oxford OX4 2HN. _____________________________________________________________________

2 1