Hi, On 31 Jul 2012, at 14:13, Guy Roberts wrote:
Thanks for taking time to review the STP proposal. Some feedback to your questions: "- Why has the definition of the local id been changed? The last I heard was that these would be full URNs which could be mapped separately to NML Port identifiers." I don't see why the localId needs to be a full URN. The full URN can be easily resolved by looking at both the localId and the NetworkId. Could you please explain this requirement further?
STPs and Ports will be used outside of NSI. We are currently building a use-case for Cinegrid workflows. This uses content descriptions, display capabilities, coupled with network information. The workflow planner consumes different kinds of descriptions, and plans a workflow accordingly, part of which is contacting an NSA to provision a path. Not using a full URN would mean that our descriptions can not directly link to an STP. Also, the STPs will always have a full URN in the topology description. If these are not used, we would have to add the local-id to the description also, effectively duplicating information.
"- Why has the definition of an STP changed? Last I heard these would be uni-directional to be able to map to NML Ports, and this would also solve the ERO direction ambiguity." I tried to pitch the STP as a grouping of 2 uni-directional ports, but no one in the working group liked this (except for NML to make their mapping easier), so it was dropped.
Okay, I think that that's a shame, but can probably live with it. But it brings up lots of questions: - How are we solving the directionality problem of the EROs then? - How do we envision the multi-point connections? - Will NSI ever support requesting unidirectional connections? Jeroen.