Re: Why NETCONF needs a data modeling language

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> Thu, 29 November 2007 17:22 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 1Ixn5d-000895-3u; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:22:17 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ixn5b-0007ww-5k for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:22:15 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ixn5a-0007wn-SR for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:22:14 -0500
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com ([64.18.2.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ixn5a-0002zE-Af for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:22:14 -0500
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:22:06 PST
Received: from magenta.juniper.net ([172.17.27.123]) by emailsmtp55.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:21:22 -0800
Received: from idle.juniper.net (idleski.juniper.net [172.25.4.26]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id lATHLLE50720; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:21:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Received: from idle.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idle.juniper.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lATHI8tS048970; Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:18:08 GMT (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Message-Id: <200711291718.lATHI8tS048970@idle.juniper.net>
To: "Rohan Mahy" <rohan.mahy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why NETCONF needs a data modeling language
In-reply-to: <953beacc0711290812t68d2cc09se1f4ff0578cc5836@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:18:08 -0500
From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2007 17:21:22.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[434BBD60:01C832AC]
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: yang@ietf.org, discuss@apps.ietf.org, NETCONF Goes On <ngo@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

"Rohan Mahy" writes:
>Organically as a practical matter, new work in W3C that uses XML is
>definitely using Relax NG.  I don't think there is an official policy
>statement or something like that.  A telling example is the XHTML2.0 spec
>(work in progresss) at http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/ . It is supposed to have
>Normative schema in RNG (Sect B+C), XSD (Sect D+E), and DTD (Sect F+G).
>Only Relax is filled in. I have spoken with folks active in other W3 working
>groups and they report a similar pattern.

This only means that the author's of xhtml2 like rng more than xsd
(and dtd).  I surely don't blame them, but the fact that there's a
section for xsd conflicts your statement that "W3C no longer uses XSD".

In my world, we've seen no requests for rng.  No idea why.  I know
the WSDL world drinks XSD for breakfast, and are probably the heavy
users.  Me, I still think XSD is a "write-only" language.

Anyway, this is way off topic.....

Thanks,
 Phil