|
Jeroen van der Ham: 03/29/2012 11:03 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
Closed set to 03/29/2012
Status changed from New to Rejected
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 03/28/2012 9:44 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
I think bidirectional ports and links are fine as the current 'group' concept. They provide a useful shorthand for those that wish to use them, but
do not need to be first class citizens of the schema.
So yes - close the issue, since its a non issue.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 03/28/2012 8:32 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
sorry, that would have been BidirectionalPorts instead of BidirectionalLinks in my previous post.
And the comment in that example is on line 33-40.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Freek Dijkstra: 03/28/2012 8:30 AM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
This is embarrassing: I don't remember what this was about.
I can imagine a few things:
1) introduce bidirectional links as "first class citizens" (to paraphrase Jason).
2) find a way to support undirected links (see artf6533 in the use cases)
As for 1): Roman brought it up again, and Jason wrote something similar in the NML examples after OGF 33 (see line .. at https://forge.ogf.org/svn/
repos/nml-examples/201109-switchservice/2vlans_option1.xml). I like bidirectional ports too, but rather spent my time on other issues right now. I
would support proposals from others, but right now won't pick it up myself.
As for 2): I like to support this use case, but don't know how right now.
In either case, I don't know what this is about, and either don't want to take it up or don't know how to take it up, so I unassign myself. Can we
close this?
|
|
Action: |
Update
Assigned To changed from Freek Dijkstra to none (no value)
|
|
Jason Zurawski: 03/27/2012 7:37 PM EDT
|
|
Comment: |
Bidirectional ports are a 'group', not a first class citizen in the schema. I was under the impression this was a shorthand that is useful for humans
, not necessarily something that would be used to 'build' the topology, would they ever need to be related to?
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|