IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org> Wed, 28 November 2007 23:34 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 1IxWQ5-0005ea-CA; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:17 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IxWQ3-0005eP-Sk for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:15 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxWQ3-0005eG-IH for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:15 -0500
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxWQ2-0001EO-1B for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:15 -0500
Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BA1142206; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:34:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org
Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LGE706XWYTB1; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:34:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.103] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84AF1421FD; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:34:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20071128.230244.254578150.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <953beacc0711271504y7aea5f21jc301ccad886d3611@mail.gmail.com> <474D9194.3060103@ericsson.com> <953beacc0711281025w4d993dd7u77d729111074496c@mail.gmail.com> <20071128.230244.254578150.mbj@tail-f.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-12--1057685930"
Message-Id: <63F8A418-6AF0-4205-ACC7-53A8C7BC6A73@osafoundation.org>
From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Subject: Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:34:06 -0800
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
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

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?

thanks,
lisa

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email