On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, John MacAuley wrote:
Looks like I have some explaining to do. We forget that not everyone is participating in the NSI weekly meetings and the extra special OGF conference meetings. Lucky for you, but unfortunately you miss the results of some of the discussions.
One of the key ideas with a standard is that one is supposed to be able to implement it without having overheard some decision on how to represent something in a phone meeting :-).
Here is what a request should look like based on all the agreements we have reached. We need to make sure everyone follows this pattern or chaos will prevail :-)
Thanks for providing an example, it is highly needed. I have a few comments, but we should definitely wait to after Rio with modifying anything.
<int:correlationId>urn:uuid:73d32a9d-fc68-4736-9c24-99abce1aaea3</int:correlationId>
This is not a UUID (correlationId is a uuidType). It is a URI/URN, which happens to by a UUID. Also there is a slew of ways to represent UUIDs. I do not see the reason for forcing the usage of UUIDs. Given the constraints I would have choosen UUIDs myself, but forcing a specific technology into the spec. seems a bit silly. A string would do fine as type.
<requesterNSA>urn:ogf:network:nsa:Aruba-OpenNSA</requesterNSA> <providerNSA>urn:ogf:network:NSnetwork:Martinique-DynamicKL</providerNSA> <globalReservationId>urn:ogf:network:service:Aruba:conn-560</globalReservationId> <connectionId>urn:uuid:593d9816-0574-471d-b2a9-101e63a5d0f2</connectionId>
Are we just using URNs because it is possible? I have a hard time seeing what value they add here? (they do not provide a global namespace). Best regards, Henrik Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj at ndgf.org> NORDUnet / Nordic Data Grid Facility.