[MIB2RDML] Re: [OPSAWG] Re: [NGO] XSDMI work

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Andy, David,

Permit me to ask a few dumb questions so that I can understand a) what
David is proposing and b) why Andy is objecting.

AFAIKS, David is proposing the following:

- a mapping from SMIv2 TCs to XSD types
- a mechanism to translate SNMP MIBS to XSD.

The XSD is an XML schema that is independent of the protocol that is
used to shuffle the data back and forth. In one respect, it is a bit
like Esperanto. It strength is that it omits the details that make it
inappropriate for one protocol or the other. But at the same time, it's
weakness is that it lacks the detail that would be required by any protocol.

David, Andy, do I have this right? If so, could you guys point out what
some of those omitted/lacking details are?

                                 /speaking as individual contributor
                                 /and by no means a data modeling expert
                                  Ron


Andy Bierman wrote:
> David Harrington wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> The XSDMI BOF proposed the creation of a WG to develop 1) the XSD
>> equivalents of datatypes and textual conventions from SMIv2, and 2)
>> algorithms to translate MIB module specifications into XSD
>> equivalents. The BOF demonstrated community support for these two work
>> items.
>> People in the BOF volunteered to commit to being editors (3) and
>> reviewers (14) for these work items. Starting documents and
>> implementations already exist. The work is expected to take less than
>> 12 months.
>>
>> At Dan's suggestion, rather than starting a new WG for this work, we
>> have proposed that the SMI-to-XSD translation work be done in the
>> OPSAWG.
>>
> 
> I have an objection to this "translation" work.
> You will make all kinds of assumptions about data organization
> and data naming, and I'm not sure what people are supposed
> to do with the XSDs.
> 
> The term "XSD translation" is misleading.
> The XML on the wire is what is at stake here.
> The smidump translation of a MIB has SNMP operations
> built into it.  Is this work supposed to produce
> a standard way to send an SNMP PDU over any protocol
> designed to encode SNMP PDUs in XML?  Why do we need this?
> 
> Is the charter going to state that the XSD translation will
> be suitable for use for any particular protocol?
> NETCONF needs to standardize XML data organization,
> namespace usage, and Xpath-based data naming.
> Is this translation going to be compatible with that standard
> when it eventually comes out?
> 
> I would like the charter to be clear on the purpose of this work item,
> and what 'protocols' are signed up to use it.
> 
> 
>> The OPSAWG chairs need to determine whether the OPSAWG WG should
>> accept this work. Please send email to [e-mail] with comments
>> about your support/lack of support for having the OPSAWG do this work.
>> (If you do not subscribe to opsawg, you might want to do so, in order
>> to follow the discussions.)
>>
>> David Harrington
>> [e-mail]
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 


_______________________________________________
MIB2RDML mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib2rdml