Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz> Mon, 03 December 2007 18:02 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzFcd-0003hC-Pg; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:02:23 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzFcc-0003ed-Az for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:02:22 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzFcc-0003ds-1G for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:02:22 -0500
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz ([195.113.144.244]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzFca-0005db-Fd for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:02:22 -0500
Received: from [130.129.20.210] (dhcp-14d2.ietf70.org [130.129.20.210]) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29307D800C1; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 19:02:10 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
To: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
In-Reply-To: <47543B30.1060409@andybierman.com>
References: <953beacc0711271504y7aea5f21jc301ccad886d3611@mail.gmail.com> <474D9194.3060103@ericsson.com> <953beacc0711281025w4d993dd7u77d729111074496c@mail.gmail.com> <20071128.230244.254578150.mbj@tail-f.com> <63F8A418-6AF0-4205-ACC7-53A8C7BC6A73@osafoundation.org> <47512728.6040201@gmx.de> <517bf110712021242v43c462f0v86267f591e5cdfbd@mail.gmail.com> <1196690162.5874.13.camel@missotis> <20071203140846.GB17536@elstar.local> <47543B30.1060409@andybierman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Organization: CESNET
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:02:03 +0100
Message-Id: <1196704923.5569.14.camel@missotis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

Andy Bierman píše v Po 03. 12. 2007 v 09:21 -0800:

> I strongly agree with Juergen.
> YANG is based (in part) on 18+ years experience
> with SNMP and SMI.

And ignoring the additional flexibility XML can provide.

> 
> It s absolutely forbidden in NM to redefine the syntax and semantics
> of a managed object in this way.

Why? Even if I explicitly specify I am using another data model? The
difference is that if the data model is easily extensible, I can just
write

import parent-model;

and then 5 lines or so describing the differences, so that it is
immediately clear what I am doing (and hopefully why). If the
extensibility is weak, I have to take the parent model, change few lines
and declare it as a new data model - but the differences are not that
clear.

Lada
 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C