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

"t.petch" <> Wed, 12 January 2011 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DAF03A6A0B for <>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:20:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.339
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.340, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fXL1gQPy9+bi for <>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:20:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAF03A6A1E for <>; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO pc6) ([]) by with SMTP id BNU09741; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:23:12 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <014201cbb239$ded879c0$>
From: "t.petch" <>
To: Tim Bray <>
References: <><01dd01cbb1b2$35775860$> <>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:19:49 +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=0001.0A0B0302.4D2D810F.023B, actions=TAG
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50,
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0205.4D2D8111.00E7, 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: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:20:58 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Bray" <>
To: "t.petch" <>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:46 PM
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM, t.petch <> wrote:

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

Huh?  Formally, "valid" means "has a DTD and conforms to it" but
almost nobody uses DTDs any more.  Whether something is or is not XML
is not in any doubt either de jure or de facto, we have good
interoperability among parsers these days.  If Netconf XML can't be
parsed, the specification must have some awful problems.

I've certainly seen some lousy XML-based protocols here and there, but
this the first instance of "inability to parse" I've run across.

I was not clear enough.  It is the ability to parse the Netconf
datastream into XML documents that is the problem with
Netconf as currently specified, and which has caused much
grief for several years.  As Lada has said, there is an I-D
which is likely to fix this (but whose progress is tortuous).

Tom Petch