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

Andy Bierman writes:
>There are tools that help do it for you, just
>like there are C compilers that do the ASM for you.

Which is why we standardize C, not ASM.

>BTW, I have 24 years, and a few of them writing
>device drivers in x86 ASM.

So you grok why only device drivers are written in ASM ;^)
(And gcc asm hooks mean you don't even need to do that)

>If people are not willing or able to learn XSD,
>then no WGs can ever really effectively standardize
>data models that use XSD to define the XML syntax.

Given the number of errors and surprises in the netconf
xsd (where people _were_ willing or able to learn XSD),
how can we inflict this on the rest of the ietf?

>(That's the Requirements Phase -- the
>first 18 months of the 5 year plan.)

Are you just trying to make me cry?

>Why can't max-access be a property of the data, which is realized
>in different ways.  In XSD, it would be an <appinfo> extension.

So you need extensions to your lower-level language to handle
high-level concepts?

>You're right that I don't use XSD to write data models.
>I am trying to refine my DML to optimize tool automation.
>I think it's way easier to use than XSD, but my language
>preference is for a C-like syntax (like SMIng).

Amen.

>Can agreement on a new DML really be reached in the IETF?
>A giant, complicated, "let's do everybody's idea" approach (ala DIFFSERV)
>is not going to work.  I am skeptical the WG result will be
>better and simpler than XSD.

The all-singing-all-dancing approach won't fly, but that doesn't
mean we're stuck w/ XSD.  I favor an incremental approach, starting
with a small number of important things, getting something working,
building trust, and then moving on to other issues.  This approach
works well, if future work builds on the initial work, rather than
recreating it.

>I completely agree that XSD is not the long term solution.

My opinion is that the IETF isn't a good place for short term solutions.

>I am quite frustrated with the progress that we have had using XSD.
>At a previous WG meeting, Simon asked people who did not understand XSD
>to abstain from a straw poll.  The count was 3 for, 3 against, 40+ abstain.

But _all_ the votes where single digit for/against.  My worry is
that this is a sign that folks have completely lost interest.  Which
would be very bad news.

Thanks,
 Phil

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