I think owned and controlled are synonymous for our purposes - even if the physical device interface is delegated to a subordinate function (e.g. an RM) it is still under the control and management of the NSA.
I agree with your comments.
Let me try to re-iterate the conclusions, so it can be captured in the Architecture Document:
- There can be only one owner of the resource that controls/manages/provisions the resource. This is known as the Resource Manager.
- All others can only "request" access (provision, schedule, reserve) to that resource from that resource manager (RM)
- The service "request" interface is "Network Service Interface" (NSI).
- NSI + RM = NSA. This does not mean they have to be the same software module or function. The two functions can be distributed, but for the outside world looking in, NSA includes the RM capability.
- ONE NSA can manage MULTIPLE local RM's. The interface between NSA and RM MUST NOT be a publicly accessible interface. An RM can ONLY be controlled by a SINGLE NSA.
- An NSA can decompose the service request to multiple sub-requests and send them to other NSAs. An NSA that decomposes the requests, MUST compose the responses and respond to the original service request.
Inder
On Feb 23, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Jerry Sobieski wrote:
Comments in line:
Guy Roberts wrote:
Freek,
Some interesting questions, here are my thoughts your questions-
Requirement 1: In my opinion each network resource should be owned by only one NSA. However, one NSA can own many resources. I guess this means that 'owned' and 'controlled' are synonymous. Though perhaps the distinction could be that a passive object (eg patchcord link) can only be owned and not managed?
It seems to me even a passive patch cable is still managed - what
happens if it breaks? I think the issue here is that it is a
component of a network, and b
y definition it is managed by the
associated NSA. (What that NSA needs to do - if anythng- to control or
manage the patch cable is a separate issue. ) Also, often in this
whole conflagration we find that one agent controls the port on one end
of a link and another agent controls the port on the other end, and
these two separate objects must *MUST* correspond to one another, ..so
the configuration is negotiated via protocols and the link in-between
simply reflects this agreed config. It is sort of moot who actually
owns the resource, or "controls" it, as that agent simply has the
priviledge of writing the negotiated configuration into the device...
I think owned and controlled are synonymous for our purposes - even if
the physical device interface is delegated to a subordinate function
(e.g. an RM) it is still under the control and management of the NSA.
Jerry
nsi-wg mailing list
nsi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg