perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

I'd like to ask about datum element. For the utilization it looks like 
this (taken from example response):

   <nmwg:data id="d1" metadataIdRef="meta1">
       <nmwg:datum timeType="unix" timeValue="1121558400"
           value="0.19281761856741222" valueUnits="Bps"/>
       <nmwg:datum timeType="unix" timeValue="1121644800"
           value="0.1621709219533064" valueUnits="Bps"/>
       <nmwg:datum timeType="unix" timeValue="1121731200"
           value="0.34163606985698564" valueUnits="Bps"/>
       <nmwg:datum timeType="unix" timeValue="1121817600"
           value="0.3812493124312431" valueUnits="Bps"/>
   </nmwg:data>


In 
http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/nmwg/branches/snmp/example_instances/errors/SDResponse1.xml 
I see that 'error' namespace is used for datum. Do we really need this 
new namespace here. Why not use just 'nmwg'. Datum of 'nmwg' namespace 
is generic for values of both metrics (utilization and errors) stored in 
rrd files.

I propose to use only 'nmwg' namespace for datum element.

(the same with discards)

Roman


David Schmitz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> from the discussions in the last week about the new schema for 
> the Input Errors/Packet Drops MA the following conclusions were drawn:
>
> For the implementation which will start soon on Monday
> the schema described by the following example instance and rnc files
> will be used:
> http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/nmwg/branches/snmp/rnc/errors.rnc
> http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/nmwg/branches/snmp/rnc/discards.rnc
> http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/nmwg/branches/snmp/example_instances/errors
> http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/nmwg/branches/snmp/example_instances/discards
>
> This version of the schema is similar to the already existing schema for
> the utilization MA.
>
>
> In the future a new version for the schema will be used, which will be a 
> unified approach comprising any possible metric covered by SNMP data
> collection, i.e. utilization, input errors, drops, and any further SNMP 
> metric.
>
> The development of this later used schema version is ongoing work.
> Currently, there are the following open issues:
>
> - use of supportedEventType parameter instead of eventType element 
>   in store file (metadata config file).
> - support of multiple event types in one metadata block?
> - new time formats for select parameters, in addition to UNIX/ISO formats
> - issues concerning the chaining of metadata elements 
>
>
> Regards,
> David
>
>
>