IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> Mon, 17 March 2008 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ngo-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ngo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ngo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4B6428C407; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9McJettVPlDQ; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0D5D3A6C64; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC48F3A696D for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3MOVHAiW8Gqw for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CBFA93A6CE1 for <ngo@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 80165 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2008 15:11:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andybierman@att.net@67.122.137.151 with plain) by smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2008 15:11:48 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: jl1Zr_8VM1nSsAx5DoSU_LgyCxa180L5ZjGWew2ZNpvhDT5n
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Message-ID: <47DE8A32.2050903@andybierman.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:11:46 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
References: <47DDBB90.1040803@andybierman.com><004301c887f8$4ad3e8e0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <47DE2B3E.1000909@andybierman.com> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0424AFA4@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0424AFA4@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Cc: NETCONF Goes On <ngo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter
X-BeenThere: ngo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF Goes On - discussions on future work and extensions to NETCONF <ngo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ngo>
List-Post: <mailto:ngo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ngo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ngo-bounces@ietf.org

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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email