NM-WG Session June 21 st 2010, OGF 29 Martin Swany – University of Delaware Jason Zurawski – Internet2

“I acknowledge that participation in this meeting is subject to the OGF Intellectual Property Policy.” Intellectual Property Notices Note Well: All statements related to the activities of the OGF and addressed to the OGF are subject to all provisions of Appendix B of GFD-C.1, which grants to the OGF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in OGF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: the OGF plenary session, any OGF working group or portion thereof, the OGF Board of Directors, the GFSG, or any member thereof on behalf of the OGF, the ADCOM, or any member thereof on behalf of the ADCOM, any OGF mailing list, including any group list, or any other list functioning under OGF auspices, the OGF Editor or the document authoring and review process Statements made outside of a OGF meeting, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an OGF activity, group or function, are not subject to these provisions. Excerpt from Appendix B of GFD-C.1: ”Where the OGF knows of rights, or claimed rights, the OGF secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the GFSG of the relevant OGF document(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The working group or research group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the OGF secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of document, except that the GFSG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the OGF Secretariat, and made available. The GFSG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in any GFD published containing the specification.” OGF Intellectual Property Policies are adapted from the IETF Intellectual Property Policies that support the Internet Standards Process. 2 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 OGF IPR

Review the current document – rojects.nm-wg/docman.root.working_drafts/doc rojects.nm-wg/docman.root.working_drafts/doc15649 Other Comments 3 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Outline

Sections – 1 Introduction – 2 Design Philosophy – 3 Basic Elements – 4 XML Namespaces – 5 Merge Metadata – 6 Operation Metadata – 7 Schema – 8 Examples 4 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Review the Current Document

Whole document – Remove the RFC 2119 words… Addressed Changes – Acknowledgment of the other WGs (NML, NMC)? Older work – predates these. Simple forward looking statement, no major change in work. Add a date for when it has been in place and current. Less reactionary to the ‘V1’ schema Agreement – Yes – with changes above. 5 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Introduction

Changes – Is the fundamental novelty of this work the split between metadata and data? Yes. – Also the extensibility from the namespaces – Chaining leads to efficiency – maybe not as one of the core principals. Chaining is ‘Workflow like’, maybe ‘macro’ workflow. Agreement – Yes – no change to this section. 6 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Design Philosophy

Summary – The basic elements are: message, store, metadata, subject, eventType, parameters, parameter, key, data, datum – The id and id ref are the only mentioned attributes “structural” Changes – Do the ‘container’ elements (message, store) need a special acknowledgement? Still need for a structural point of view. Needs specification in other docs of course. Agreement – Yes – with minor edits to store/message section. 7 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Basic Elements

Changes – Register OGF w/ IANA to make real URIs. – Paragraph 2 – Not all extensions need to extend the base elements. Most will will, but not all will. Jason will fix – Any more special reference to the OGF community documents on the use of XML namesspaces? – Are the examples sufficient? – Do we care any more about the use of versioning (e.g. ‘date’ based)? This may be a problem. Date based is preferred, but 2.0 lives on out there. Leave it be – Is more needed for expansion? Agreement – Yes – Minor review 8 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 XML Namespaces

Changes – NMC will not be using ‘merge’ metadata in their protocol description – does this force any changes to the NM description? Not completely decided in NMC, TBD. – It was suggested that more care be taken in describing how to merge (mostly in the context of NMC …) what can be done in that space? Remove a type of merging? Needs to be more descriptive rather than Socratic – Go back to the OGF/NMC/NML Journal Article and bring back changes. Conceptually what happens … start at the top w/ both. Need to not be so implementation specific. – From discussion: “Add”, if add doesn’t work “replace”, and if its complete nonsense, then it’s the “union” of the two. Less of a chain … more of a tree for the merging of metadata Agreement – Yes – Needs to be fixed though. Tightened up. 9 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Merge Metadata

Changes – NMC will incorporate and add to this section in their protocol document, does that force any changes to this section? – Make sure there are no mentions of ‘filters’ – Figure 3 and Figure 4 need to be edited Agreement – Yes/No 10 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Operation Metadata

Changes – Should the schemata be in an appendix? No – More explanation necessary? Some, for time. Nothing for topo – Other ‘optional’ schemas here? Less in the ‘core’ schemata set? (e.g. ‘Time’ and ‘Topology’) Time – needs to be normative. Need to move comments from schema file into text. Examples Remove description of it being ‘basic’ and ‘simple’. Agreement – Yes – with changes 11 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Schema

Changes – Is the ‘ping’ example sufficient? Yes – Other examples? No Agreement – Yes – Yes, as is. 12 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Examples

Omissions? – Glossary, should make one. – Reference the OGF Journal. Changes? – Ack section needs to be longer, Martin to write. 13 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2 Other Comments

NM-WG Session June 21 st 2010, OGF 29 Martin Swany – University of Delaware Jason Zurawski – Internet2 For more information, visit 14 – 10/11/2014, © 2010 Internet2