Hi John, Clear proposal, thanks! I am halfway reading this, but have a different meeting coming up, so I just comment on what I read. (slide 4)
– An AdaptaNon can also be defined between STP of the same service type in the case where encapsulation/adaptation of the input service type results in the same output service type.
I'm not clear on the purpose of this type of adaptation (one type encapsulated in the same type). Can you perhaps give a example? (slide 5) What is the purpose of having different Service Domains in a Network Topology? Because the STP in each services domain are of a different type? Or to describe geographic subdivisions withing a Network Topology? Note that the former is represented in NML using multiple SwitchingServices, and the later is represented in NML using multiple (sub) Topologies 'in' a larger Topology (where this 'in' is formally defined as a 'hasTopology' relation). PS: I now see that you answered this on slide 19. Thanks, John! I love this proposal. My head is too blurred to due lack of sleep to really grok every character in the example, but from a first look, it looks very, very good! Freek On 04-12-2013 06:06, John MacAuley wrote:
Peoples,
As promised I have done a first pass at modelling the additional NSI topology concepts in NML. I did an overview of all the components we have defined to date so we can see how they all hang together. The slide pack attached is an overview of the proposal. The XML document attacked is an updated reference topology representation, and the schema files attached are the updated NML, NSI-EXT, and service definition schemas.
John
_______________________________________________ nsi-wg mailing list nsi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
-- Freek Dijkstra | Group Leader & Network Expert | Infrastructure Services | SURFsara | | Science Park 140 | 1098 XG Amsterdam | +31 6 4484 7459 | | Freek.Dijkstra@surfsara.nl | www.surfsara.nl | Available on Mon | Tue | Thu | Fri |