Hi, On 19 Dec 2013, at 12:26, Henrik Thostrup Jensen <htj@nordu.net> wrote:
Had a look at the updates.
Thanks.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
nsi:Service -> nsi:Interface rename. I cannot recall dicussing this on the call. It doesn't really matter, but it is difficult to see why this had to be renamed. Both terms are overloaded anyway, but usually I associate interface with something slightly more abstract.
This is something that John changed, I just copied it in because I did not follow all NSI calls lately.
The schemas/test2.xml is (very) outdated. I suggest removing it.
Done.
I would - very much - like to have xs:any under the nsi:NSA (I was actually under the impression that it was there already). It is also a bit weird of us to complain about NML not having them, and not adding them ourselves. Here is a patch:
--- a/schemas/nsi-ext.xsd +++ b/schemas/nsi-ext.xsd @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ <xs:element ref="nsi:Interface" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xs:element ref="nsi:Relation" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> <xs:element ref="nml:Topology" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> + <!-- the local one is needed for xmllint to not complain about determinism --> + <xs:any namespace="##local" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> + <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent>
Doesn’t the inheritance from NetworkObject already include the xs:any ? Or does that get lost in the change?
There is a bug in libxml2 that will complain about the model not being deterministic when not having the local there. It is actually, but since a lot of people use libxml2, I've added the local element.
Sounds good to me.
Since we added the labelType in the SwitchingService, I think it should be in the example.
Good point, do you have an example?
Will the namespaces by updated?
Yes, the namespace will be updated to the date of publication of the document (as happened with NML). I have not updated them yet, because I have no idea when this would happen.
One more thing. I think we discussed - and perhaps decided - to an NSI extension for capacity on the ports. AFAICT that isn't it currently; I think we should consider adding it.
Iirc that depended on adding an attribute to a Port, which I’m not sure how to do in an extension schema. Jeroen.