- Nsi-wg - lists.ogf.org

suggested diagrams
by John Vollbrecht 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

Attached are two pics - the first is a possible replacement for figure 3 in section 5 of the current doc. The second shows some additional primitives that can be added in similar way. Separating the timelines is meant to indicate that the initiating requestor might not be the same in each case. The dotted lines indicate that some messages are optional in the getting the work done in a connection lifecycle. We might talk about this tomorrow. I haven't had a chance to show the notify, but I will try to add this tomorrow before the call. John

6 13

minutes from today's NSI call
by Guy Roberts 16 Sep '10

16 Sep '10

The minutes from today NSI conf call are attached below. Guy ------------- Minutes NSI-WG conf call 15 Sept 2010 Attendees: Guy Roberts John Vollbrecht Chin Guok Tomohiro Kudoh Jerry Sobieski Inder Monga Apologies: Radek Krzywania Joan Garcia-Espin Action points from last week's call: AP1: JS to prepare a brief proposal for event notifications in the Connection Service - ongoing Discussions: Agreement that the 'modify' primitive will not be included in version 1.0 of the Connection Service The 'query' primitive is to be included. In its basic version this primitive will allow the requester NSA to request the state of any attribute for a given connection Id. More advance queries are still for discussion. Discussion on how to authorize primitives. General agreement that each primitive should include its own authorization attributes. No agreement on how these should be used. Discussion on the problem of keeping Connection state in NSAs. This could cause scaling problems (i.e not scalable) since each NSA needs to keep the state of each transited connection and keep track of who requested the connection and who it was forwarded to. This issue needs to be analysed further in future once the protocol has been defined. Notifications will be included in release 1.0. No agreement on what can be notified and how notifications are enabled. Agreement was reached on the principle that notifications should only be sent to the requestor NSA that requested the Connection. If notifications are to be sent to other NSAs (not the Connection requester) there needs to be a mechanism to identify these to the provider NSA. This mechanism has not been defined. Discussion on whether we really need two mechanisms for provisioning - auto and manual. Should we reconsider this decision and go for just one of these methods? Or should we stick to the current agreement as documented in the Connection Service Architecture document. Jerry suggested revisiting the decision to define the 'start time' as the time at which provisioning is completed and the connection comes into service - is this realistic? Can operators guarantee that we can meet this requirement? Action Points: AP1: GR to book 3 NSI sessions at OGF 30 (prefer Tuesday) AP2: JS to prepare a brief proposal for event notifications in the Connection

5 4

notify diagrams
by John Vollbrecht 15 Sep '10

15 Sep '10

1 0

today's NSI call
by Guy Roberts 15 Sep '10

15 Sep '10

Hi all, The following is dial-in information for Wednesday's NSI call: Time: 7:30 PDT 10:30 EDT, 15:30 BST, 16:30 CEST, 23:30 JST Call: +1-734-615-7474 (Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0155180 Agenda: Discussion on the Connection Service primitives - which are necessary for release 1.0? (See proposals by John V. attached). Latest version of Connection Service Architecture: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16045?nav=1 Guy -----Original Message----- From: John Vollbrecht [mailto:jrv@internet2.edu] Sent: 14 September 2010 22:52 To: NSI WG Subject: [Nsi-wg] suggested diagrams Attached are two pics - the first is a possible replacement for figure 3 in section 5 of the current doc. The second shows some additional primitives that can be added in similar way. Separating the timelines is meant to indicate that the initiating requestor might not be the same in each case. The dotted lines indicate that some messages are optional in the getting the work done in a connection lifecycle. We might talk about this tomorrow. I haven't had a chance to show the notify, but I will try to add this tomorrow before the call. John

1 0

minutes from today's NSI conf call
by Guy Roberts 08 Sep '10

08 Sep '10

.... are available here: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16056?nav=1 Guy

1 0

NSI CS Message (ConnReq)
by John Vollbrecht 08 Sep '10

08 Sep '10

Attached is a doc that builds on the framework Guy provided last week. I think this reflects our discussion so far. I note that the Path part is one which I think needs lots more discussion. I can work on that next week -- maybe others can as well? I think other issues to be clarified for the architecture part include the role of topology and path finding in NSI, and perhaps some limitation on what sort of services can be included in NSI. What issues do others think need to be addressed? John

2 1

today's NSI call
by Guy Roberts 08 Sep '10

08 Sep '10

Hi all, The following is dial-in information for Wednesday's NSI call: Time: 7:30 PDT 10:30 EDT, 15:30 BST, 16:30 CEST, 23:30 JST Call: +1-734-615-7474 (Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0155180 Agenda: Discussion on the lifecycle and parameters of the connection service. Latest version of Connection Service Architecture: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16045?nav=1 Guy

1 0

updated NSI object model
by Guy Roberts 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

John, I have attached an updated NSI object model. The idea here is that there are 3 groupings: Objects common to the message Objects common to the service Objects common to the primitive Guy

1 0

minutes from today's NSI call
by Guy Roberts 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

.... are available here: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16055?nav=1 Guy

1 0

updated doc showing NSI message fields
by John Vollbrecht 01 Sep '10

01 Sep '10

Attached is a doc that attempts to document the changes in the fields Guy had is the doc he sent last week. I think the fields are pretty close to what we talked about -- correct me if I am wrong. I did add some definition to what is in each of the fields. These need more discussion, but I put something down to try to focus the discussion. Again, please suggest changes, prior to the call makes for more progress on the call. John

2 2