Re: Basic ietf process question ...

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

On 02/08/2012, at 1:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think anyone with intimate experience of the Web Services standards

I do, unfortunately.

Specifically: contributor to SOAP, WS-Addressing, WS-Policy, MTOM, lead editor of the WS-I Basic Profile, etc. (ad nauseum).


> 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,

+1

XML Schema is grossly over-engineered for its purpose; being the subject of requirements from not only the document markup field, but also databases and object models, it's a twisted monstrosity that tries to do many things, and fails at most.

Specifically, it's very common for people to try to use schema to inform "binding" tools into specific languages. However, the underlying metamodel of XML, the Infoset, is both complex and a poor fit for most languages, so bindings take "shortcuts" and expose a profile of XML's range of expression, encouraging some patterns of use, while discouraging (or disallowing) others. Since the bindings often make different decisions (based upon the language of use), interoperability is difficult (sometimes, impossible).

Furthermore, designing a schema that is extensible is incredibly convoluted in XML Schema 1.0. Schema 1.1 was designed to address this failure, but it hasn't been broadly adopted; most people I know in the field consider it a failure. 

What surprises me and many others is that people are still using it and promoting it, when it's well-understood by almost EVERYONE who was involved in using XML for protocols in the past ten years agrees that it's a mistake.

Cheers,


> 
> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/