On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:24 AM, Inder Monga wrote:

John,

For discussion tomorrow, a few questions:

1. We have narrowed down the definition of the Network Service Interface as an interface just to request transport connections. I think we need to be a bit careful of this narrowing of definition
"•NSI is the protocol that allows a user to request a transport connection from a provider (but not limited to)

I think it is limited. My take is that not limiting it makes defining it much harder. What else do you think should be an NSI protocol?

2. Do we need transport user and transport provider definitions? I am not sure what purpose that serves...why not network services user and network services provider?

I think the service is transport. Probably this goes with the above question.

3.Slide 5:Actor may include multiple agents with interfaces to services managing other resources such as storage or compute"

If the context is NS Actor, then it does not seem likely it will be managing other resources like compute and storage? (ref slide 5 and 6)
There is a concept of multi-resource scheduler/actor, but that would be different from NS actor

the point is that and Actor may have multiple roles, one of which is NS actor when talking about an NS interface.

4. Brokers and Wholesalers: Are we going out of scope by talking about different resources other than the network? Do we need to define these concepts within NSI?

This has to do with defining trust and authorization capabilites. I think it useful to point out different ways that Actors might behave so that one can think about trust and authorization in a flexible way. The need for them in NSI is to be sure that the NSI interface can support them if it need fields to carry attributes, parameters, in different ways.