Re: Basic ietf process question ...

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

I think anyone with intimate experience of the Web Services standards
experiment (trying to use XML as if it was a Turing machine) would have
extreme doubts about any proposal to impose such a requirement.

It was not for no reason that many people came to refer to the Web
Services family of standards as "WS-splat". The words "small" and
"xml schema" don't really belong together,

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 02/08/2012 18:12, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
>> We should be talking
>> nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that fits all.
> 
> Just to clarify what I asked about .. I am not looking for a single tool
> or single protocol to be used to configure everything.
> 
> I am asking for small building block like xml schema (or something
> similar) to be part of each new IETF proposal or protocol change. IMHO
> only that can allow any further more fancy abstractions and tools to be
> build and used in practice.
> 
> Best regards,
> R.
> 
> 
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda
>> concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for
>> management protocols.
>>
>>
>> My personal take is that no one protocol, or one data modeling language
>> can match the operational requirements to configure and manage the wide
>> and wider range of hosts, routers and other network devices that are
>> used to implement IP networks and protocols. We should be talking
>> nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that fits all. However,
>> this is a discussion that just starts.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of
>>> Robert Raszuk
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Basic ietf process question ...
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions,
>>> Security Considerations, Refs, etc ...
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a good reason why any new protocol definition or
>>> enhancement does not have a build in mandatory "XML schema" section
>>> which would allow to actually use such standards based enhancement in
>>> vendor agnostic way ?
>>>
>>> There is a lot of talk about reinventing APIs, building network wide
>> OS
>>> platform, delivering SDNs (whatever it means at any point of time for
>>> one) ... but how about we start with something very basic yet IMHO
>>> necessary to slowly begin thinking of network as one plane.
>>>
>>> I understand that historically we had/still have SNMP however I have
>>> never seen this being mandatory section of any standards track
>> document.
>>> Usually SNMP comes 5 years behind (if at all) making it obsolete by
>>> design.
>>>
>>> NETCONF is great and very flexible communication channel for
>>> provisioning. However it is sufficient to just look at number of ops
>>> lists to see that those who tried to use it quickly abandoned their
>>> efforts due to complete lack of XML schema from each vendor they
>> happen
>>> to use or complete mismatch of vendor to vendor XML interpretation.
>>>
>>> And while perhaps this is obvious I do not think that any new single
>>> effort will address this. This has to be an atomic and integral part
>> of
>>> each WG's document.
>>>
>>> Looking forward for insightful comments ...
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> R.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
>