Re: Basic ietf process question ...

["Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[e-mail]>]

On 8/2/12 9:25 AM, "Robert Raszuk" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>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 ?

For docs that use XML, requiring some form of schema makes sense.
However, what we're finding at the application layer is that often times
using JSON (see RFC 4627) ends up with better interoperability more
quickly than using XML, except in the case of human-readable content like
marked-up text.  See RFC 6120, Appendix A (http://goo.gl/CBv8G) for
another example.

For those that insist on XML, RelaxNG (http://goo.gl/MYnB1) is another
language you can use to describe your XML, which is a little easier to
learn than XSD.

However, for implementors, if you start with the schema and blindly use it
for conformance checking of real-world traffic, you are likely to have
both performance and extensibility issues in practice.

If folks at other layers in the stack would like input from Apps folks,
I'm sure that we would be happy to share our lessons learned.  Join
apps-discuss (http://goo.gl/0Otjv) and ask for help.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand