Re: [apps-discuss] An XML RFC primer?

"t.petch" <> Tue, 11 January 2011 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE4F3A6A64 for <>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:09:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.666
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xwWfZ6KMNLIm for <>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:09:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB1D3A6A62 for <>; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:09:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO pc6) ([]) by with SMTP id BHB83208; Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:12:05 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <01dd01cbb1b2$35775860$>
From: "t.petch" <>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>,
References: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:08:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Neutral-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0301.4D2C9D70.0181, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50,
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B020B.4D2C9D75.0223, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] An XML RFC primer?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:09:52 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 8:57 PM

I've got a project on the go that will result in a few different I-Ds for
consideration, one of which contains a specification for a new XML-based
reporting format.  Can someone suggest some RFCs that have done a good job of
the same sort of thing in the past that I could use as a template for such work,
or a BCP or similar?


Netconf chose XML and XSD, and probably wishes it hadn't.  I had a quick scan of
archives and cannot find any decent summary of just why it doesn't work; Randy
Presuhn is always the most articulate as to just why XML gets it wrong, its lack
of coherent intellectual underpinnings.  OK, Netconf has a more challenging
objective, of replacing aspects of SMI and SNMP but even so, some at least of
the problems are generic, such as
 - lack of proper typing
 - naming and namespaces (eg the no namespace, null namespace, ...)
 - impossibility of validating documents with XSD (possible with DSDL).

I did a survey of many (most?) IETF XML RFC/I-D before we started, and saw a lot
of options with no guidance as to which way to go.  (I found some documents that
were plain wrong).  I raised this lack of guidance on the IETF list but got no

Netconf did take advice from the XML Directorate, and they were plain wrong, in
one key regard, which has turned out to be an issue that has taken years so far,
and as yet is unresolved (the question they failed to answer correctly was what
is and is not valid XML? the consequence is an inability to parse XML documents
transported by Netconf as currently specified).

So, if there anything better, with tools available, I would recommend it

Tom Petch