IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz> Mon, 03 December 2007 23:00 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 1IzKGl-0003s7-3L; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:00:07 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKGk-0003qQ-0m for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:00:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKGj-0003qG-Js for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:00:05 -0500
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz ([195.113.144.244]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzKGi-0003cc-2a for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:00:05 -0500
Received: from [130.129.53.102] (dhcp-3566.ietf70.org [130.129.53.102]) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD05FD800BD for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 23:59:48 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
To: discuss@apps.ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <003801c835e7$4fefeb20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
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> <1196704923.5569.14.camel@missotis> <003801c835e7$4fefeb20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Organization: CESNET
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:59:46 +0100
Message-Id: <1196722786.5835.57.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: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
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

Hi,

Randy Presuhn píše v Po 03. 12. 2007 v 12:01 -0800:

> I strongly agree with Andy and Juergen.  "Mushy" definitions
> are disastrous for interoperability.

I think it's a misunderstanding. I am not pleading for fuzzy (is it
approximately what "mushy" means?;-) data models, the models can and
should be simple and unambiguous, I am talking about additional
flexibility for model *designers*, i.e., straightforward means for
reusing and extending existing models into new models (also by adding
structure to former leaves, why not?), and here I think YANG is rather
rigid when compared to RELAX NG.

Lada

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email