Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:12 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Randy Presuhn; NETCONF Goes On
> Subject: Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter
> 
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> >  
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ngo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ngo-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of 
> >> Andy Bierman
> >>
> >> We have also been using XSD for the canonical XML syntax 
> >> representation in protocol documents for quite some time.
> >> I strong object to changing this policy to RelaxNG or DSDL without 
> >> IETF Approval first.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > Allow me to express shortly my view as a contributor. 
> > 
> > I do not believe that we deal here with a change in policy. The 
> > canonical XML syntax representation stays with us as the 
> 'on the wire'
> > interoperability level. We are introducing an operator-friendly 
> > language that is described by Randy in his preliminary 
> charter draft 
> > and the mapping between the operator-friendly level and the 
> XML. These 
> > would be the mandatory-to-implement elements of the framework
> > 
> > We also recognize that there is a place for a machine-friendly 
> > representation that would accommodate existing tools and allow for 
> > import of existing XML schemes already defined by other WGs in the 
> > IETF or other SDOs, in RelaxNG or DSDL or other. Mappings 
> between the 
> > operator-friendly language and RelaxNG or DSDL would be 
> optional, but 
> > at least one of them will be a loss-less translation.
> > 
> 
> 
> This sounds fine from a policy POV.
> In practical terms, it seems that document reviewers will 
> have a lot more work to do, verifying that:
> 
>    - all these mappings are well-formed
>    - they match the semantics of the high-level model
>    - there are no conflicts between any of the machine-mappings
>    - all DM variants in the document describe the exact same 
> set of XML
> 
> Since the IETF track record for validating XSD correctness is 
> so poor already, how will the box score look when 3 
> complicated DMLs need to be reviewed, instead of 1?
> 
> Or is the intent to fill up NETCONF data model drafts will 
> lots of pages that nobody will review?
> 
> 
> 
> Andy
> 

If you refer to what happens after all this is defined, I do not think
that each DM document needs to be written (and reviewed) in the three
formats. The mandatory format is the one expressed in the
operator-friendly DML, other are optional and MAY be defined from case
to case. 

Dan

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo