Re: Basic ietf process question ...

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

On 02/08/2012 19:17, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> Perhaps we understand a different thing by "xml schema" As example what
> I had in mind when asking this question was the example from "Appendix
> A" of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-marques-l3vpn-schema-00 where
> while perhaps not yet complete it does provide decent representation of
> one of the popular service today.

There are certainly cases where systematic metadata are useful; I can't judge
whether VPN configuration is one of them, but I can easily believe it. In such
a case, I suppose XML is as good a tool as ASN.1, ABNF or whatever else
you might choose.

> That's what I had mind asking why such appendix isn't a mandatory part
> of each new protocol extension.

That's an enormous leap that I just don't understand. Most protocols don't
need that sort of configuration complexity.

> It has very little to do with Web Services you may be referring to.

Yes it does. It's exactly because of a doctrinaire approach that whatever
it is, it should be represented by an XML schema, that WS-splat became
such a horribly complex matter.

Again: no problem with creating XML schemata where they are useful. But
making them mandatory would be just as bad as making MIB modules mandatory,
IMHO.

    Brian

> 
> Many thx,
> R.
> 
>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
>