Re: Basic ietf process question ...

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

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.

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

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

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