Re: [NGO] NETCONF Data Modeling BoF (NDM) proposal

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> Thu, 13 September 2007 19:42 UTC

Return-path: <ngo-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVua4-0004Fo-Bj; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:42:28 -0400
Received: from ngo by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IVua2-0004Fi-TS for ngo-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:42:26 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVua2-0004FZ-Jd for ngo@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:42:26 -0400
Received: from smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.207]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVua1-0005A1-CX for ngo@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:42:26 -0400
Received: (qmail 70671 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2007 19:42:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.11?) (andybierman@att.net@75.50.187.99 with plain) by smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Sep 2007 19:42:24 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: hv.HD9EVM1mDf9X6NUiwjSf613K3hytsdIoHJY0huNBP2k0F
Message-ID: <46E99227.2020901@andybierman.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:40:23 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
Subject: Re: [NGO] NETCONF Data Modeling BoF (NDM) proposal
References: <200709101341.l8ADfqql043484@idle.juniper.net> <46E5597A.6030707@andybierman.com> <027701c7f522$6fac3b40$0601a8c0@pc6> <1189599849.19708.64.camel@missotis> <46E83B61.2040303@andybierman.com> <1189633858.13920.38.camel@missotis> <46E885CF.4070101@andybierman.com> <1189667526.17648.14.camel@missotis>
In-Reply-To: <1189667526.17648.14.camel@missotis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081
Cc: ngo@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ngo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF Goes On - discussions on future work and extensions to NETCONF <ngo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ngo>
List-Post: <mailto:ngo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ngo-bounces@ietf.org

Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Andy Bierman píše v St 12. 09. 2007 v 17:35 -0700:
>> Although a very nice example,
>> I actually prefer XSD to RelaxNG (XML syntax).
>> That's probably because I spent the time to study XSD
>> in detail, but not RelaxNG.  I think somebody new to both
>> would not think either one was easy. 
> 
> Try it and you will see that RELAX NG is way easier and more
> predictable. James Clark claims the RNG Tutorial can get you going in 30
> minutes, which is probably an exaggeration, but perhaps two hours could
> be enough?

I did try RelaxNG.
I didn't say I don't understand the RNG you wrote,
I'm saying I like the consistency and symmetry of XSD
better than the less predictable syntax of RNG.

I like abstract elements and substitutionGroup replacement of those elements.
I like the way XSD complex types are extended, and think that is going to be
important for vendor augmentation of standard data models.  I like the ability
to create complex choices (via group definitions and unions).

We have used all of these features extensively already in NETCONF data models.
(Both of them ;-)  XSD and XML allow us to create syntax which exact mirrors
the 'native' format of complex procedural interfaces.

This is the main reason I think NETCONF has a some chance to succeed as
a configuration protocol. When new data models are designed by a WG,
semi-object-oriented APIs can be created, not just data structures.
A WG has much more control than ever before over the partition of
public and private data.

Domain-specific RPC methods may be easier to reach consensus on than
pure data driven APIs, because the RPC method can place many more
constraints on the parameters, and these parameters cannot be changed
later on with <edit-config>.

Eventually there will be data modeling languages available which
exploit the full power of the protocol, and understand the difference
between procedural operations on configuration databases, and descriptions
of valid XML instance documents (which is all XSD and RNG provide).

> 
> Lada
> 

Andy


_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo