perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

Jeff W. Boote wrote:
> Hi Loukik,
>
> I'm sorry, but I do have a problem with the way you put the keyword 
> parameter in here.
>
> This is not what I understood from the previous interaction. I thought 
> you were going to use the parameters from the metadata, not modify the 
> topology elements to add a parameters block in. (I thought the main 
> point of using parameters was that schema definitions would not have 
> to change. The way you have done this would modify the parsing in the 
> Java implementation as well...) If we are actually going to modify 
> schema, I would advocate a full fledged element for this functionality 
> - I do not think an amorphous parameters block is a good idea 'inside' 
> the topology schema elements. That will make several other things we 
> need to do more difficult (summarization/topology sharing/etc...).
>
> Also - just a comment based on reading this - I think adding this 
> parameter into the top of your store file is likely a mistake. I don't 
> have a strong opinion about it since the store file is internal to 
> your services and does not impact protocol or interoperability. But, 
> you should think about this because I think it will present some 
> special case situations that will likely make ongoing maintenance of 
> those services more difficult. (i.e. are all parameters from this 
> location subject to this 'inheritance' to internal param blocks? There 
> are parameters at different levels of the schema, which ones does this 
> inheritance apply to?)

I agree with Jeff. My understanding of using new parameter 'keyword' is 
that it will be used like other parameters in metadata block:


 <nmwg:metadata id="meta1">
     <netutil:subject id="subj1">
         <nmwgt:interface>
             <!-- ... some interface elements -->
         </nmwgt:interface>
      </netutil:subject>
      
<nmwg:eventType>http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/characteristic/utilization/2.0</nmwg:eventType>
      <nmwg:parameters>
          <nmwg:parameter name="keyword" 
type="project">http://geant2.net</nmwg:parameter>
      </nmwg:parameters>
 </nmwg:metadata>



I also suggest to use this parameter only inside metadata block.


Roman




> jeff
>
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In attachments you can find word documents that detail all the 
> > changes expected from RRD MA and SQL MA for release 3.1. Please note 
> > that there is a section on syslog that is not complete and should be 
> > filled with a reference to another document at some point in time in 
> > the future.
> >
> > The focus is on the introduction of the new fields (keyword 
> > parameters) as well as e2emon sync support from SQL MA.
> >
> > The document is of interest to the following
> >
> > Roman, Szymon - implementation
> > Nina et. al, David et. al, - visualisation tool implementation
> > Michalis et. al. - Web admin changes and Test scripts update
> > Matthias and Mark - e2emon sync spec
> >
> > The next step is for the document to be reviewed and if there aren't 
> > any comments, necessary changes to be undertaken including upgrade of 
> > documentation (interface spec). Comments are welcome on these 
> > documents until 10th of June 2008 after which changes will have to be 
> > moderated.
> >
> > If you have any questions, let me know.
> >
> > --
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > L o u k i k   K u d a r i m o t i
> >
> >     * *              Network Engineer
> >   *     *            City House, 126 - 130, Hills Road
> >  *                   Cambridge CB2 1PQ, United Kingdom
> >  *                   WWW: http://www.dante.net
> > D  A  N  T  E          Tel:+44 1223 371300 Fax:+44 1223 371371
> >
> > <SQL MA change specification for 3.1 release.doc><RRD MA change 
> > specification for 3.1 release.doc>