IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 02 December 2007 19:43 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 1IyuiX-0006x7-NL; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:43:05 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IyuiV-0006uw-Ih for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:43:03 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyuiV-0006ug-8g for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:43:03 -0500
Received: from qwak.roomlinx.com ([64.40.109.249] helo=newqwak1.roomlinx.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IyuiT-0004vl-Lw for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:43:03 -0500
Received: (qmail 15804 invoked by uid 513); 2 Dec 2007 05:44:09 -0000
Received: from julian.reschke@gmx.de by qwak.roomlinx.com by uid 502 with qmail-scanner-1.22 (clamdscan: 0.74. spamassassin: 2.63. Clear:RC:1(204.244.69.83):. Processed in 0.142708 secs); 02 Dec 2007 05:44:09 -0000
Received: from swc.roomlinx.com (HELO ?10.0.0.38?) (204.244.69.83) by newqwak1.roomlinx.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2007 05:44:08 -0000
Message-ID: <47512728.6040201@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:19:36 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG
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>
In-Reply-To: <63F8A418-6AF0-4205-ACC7-53A8C7BC6A73@osafoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
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

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> This is another aspect I'd like to understand better:
> 
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 2:02 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> 
>> Note that in order to validate the different NETCONF messages, you
>>
>> would either need more than one schema, or a very lax schema which
>>
>> will validate messages/documents which are not actually valid NETCONF.
>>
> 
> Validating XML really limits the customizability, the very extensibility 
> of the XML.  You can't add so much as a <custom-text-description> or 
> <debug-info-only> element without it failing at the other end.  Is the 
> goal here to strictly limit netconf data to only standardized and 
> implemented schemas?  

Well, that depends on the schema language. RelaxNG allows to define 
languages that use the must-ignore rule for new elements.

BR, Julian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email