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

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:28:59PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
>> <soapbox>
>> I am not against a new DML for NETCONF.
>> I just want to get started on standard data models,
>> and use XSD while a new DML matures enough to co-exist
>> and perhaps eventually replace XSD.
>>
>> I used to think the 'XSD appinfo' approach would be a total hack,
>> and 'brand new everything' would do the job better.  Now I think
>> of XSD as the underlying assembly language of XML tools.
>> It is now common practice to use an 'in-house' DML that make
>> XML data modeling possible for humans, and generates write-only XSDs
>> for tools.  (Got one myself ;-)
>>
>> So instead of getting rid of XSD, we should use it as the low-level
>> machine readable common language, and some <appinfo> extensions
>> in the ASM code may look ugly, but they will get the job done.
>> </soapbox>
> 
> So you suggest to standardize data models in assembler code?
> 

I am suggesting that XSD continue to be used for the foreseeable future.

> Or do you suggest to standardize informal englisch prose information
> models that everybody can turn into their favourite NETCONF data
> modeling language to produce some assembler that hopefully is
> interoperable?

I am suggesting that data models be clearly documented, instead
of just putting an XSD into an xml2rfc template and publishing it.
I think an SMI document is needed that addresses many details
that need to be supported for long-term module management,
and interoperability between modules, which I address in the ncx-smi-00 draft.

> 
> Something else?

I think new DMLs should be considered experiments,
and experiments are good for achieving the long term goals.

> 
> /js
> 

Andy

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