[Nsi-wg] NSI CS XSD comments
Atsuko Takefusa
atsuko.takefusa at aist.go.jp
Wed Apr 13 08:30:09 CDT 2011
Hi all,
I prefer John's structured schema.
Because it can specify optional or mandatory parameters and data types
of each parameter, explicitly.
In order for interoperability, we should define a standard schema as
explicitly as possible.
Thank you,
Atsuko
G-lambda, AIST
2011/4/12 John MacAuley <john.macauley at surfnet.nl>:
> Peoples,
> I think there is one major area we need to close on before I feel
> comfortable starting to write the associated document. It is specifically
> around the service parameters and how they are specified:
> <!-- Parameters relating to the requested service. -->
> <xsd:complexType name="ServiceParametersType">
> <xsd:sequence>
> <!-- Time parameters relating to the reservation. -->
> <xsd:element name="schedule" type="tns:ScheduleType"/>
> <xsd:element name="bandwidth" type="tns:BandwidthType"/>
> <xsd:element name="directionality" type="tns:DirectionalityType"/>
> <xsd:element name="pathObject" type="tns:PathObjectType"/>
> <xsd:element name="guaranteed" type="tns:AttributeSequenceType"
> minOccurs="0"/>
> <xsd:element name="preferred" type="tns:AttributeSequenceType"
> minOccurs="0"/>
> </xsd:sequence>
> </xsd:complexType>
> The main question I have is do we change this structure to be completely
> generic and list all service parameters through type/value pairs, or do we
> break out hose key ones as I have here and put the remaining in the
> type/value pairs?
> Also, for bandwidth do we document the values as Mb/s or do I add an element
> to explicitly identify the unit as suggested in one provided comment.
> Thank you,
> John.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsi-wg mailing list
> nsi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsi-wg
>
>
--
Atsuko Takefusa, Ph. D.
Information Technology Research Institute, AIST
More information about the nsi-wg
mailing list