Re: analysis of YANG vs. RELAX NG

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> 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.
>
>   

flexibility is the enemy of inter-operability.
We are trying to create multi-vendor network management systems.
It is well understood in the NM world that refining existing data
definitions breaks existing manager code.


>> 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.
>   

This does not help the running code that expects the old definition of
the data object.

Deployment of NM code is part of our problem space.
It may be irrelevant to APPs work, but not NM.

> Lada
>  
>   

Andy