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

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz> Mon, 10 September 2007 07:07 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 1IUdMf-0003Q2-Nd; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:07:21 -0400
Received: from ngo by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IUdMe-0003Pw-0e for ngo-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:07:20 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUdMa-0003LA-1g for ngo@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:07:16 -0400
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz ([195.113.144.244]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IUdMY-0003Y9-JQ for ngo@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 03:07:16 -0400
Received: from [172.29.2.201] (asus-gx.lhotka.cesnet.cz [195.113.161.161]) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C42D800C5 for <ngo@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:07:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [NGO] NETCONF Data Modeling BoF (NDM) proposal
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@cesnet.cz>
To: ngo@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <46E4D26F.7080700@hitachi.com>
References: <46E03BD1.4010702@andybierman.com> <20070906184430.GA2882@elstar.local> <46E05160.50503@andybierman.com> <20070906195555.GA3040@elstar.local> <46E0630B.2030908@andybierman.com> <20070906211658.GA3081@elstar.local> <46E07909.1060209@andybierman.com> <20070907063232.GA3394@elstar.local> <46E15034.30309@andybierman.com> <46E17978.6080505@ericsson.com> <46E191F6.4010103@andybierman.com> <46E4D26F.7080700@hitachi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Organization: CESNET
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:07:13 +0200
Message-Id: <1189408033.7618.18.camel@missotis>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
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

Tomoyuki Iijima píše v Po 10. 09. 2007 v 14:13 +0900:

> I totally agrew with Andy's comments. We talked about XSD's superiority
> at the 68th IETF meeting in Prague. The slide related to this issue is
> found below.
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-6/sld15.htm

Your account is biased towards XSD:
1. Support for RELAX NG in .NET does exist, it is included in the Mono
implementation.
2. Python has very good support for RELAX NG (as well as for XSD) via
libxml2.
3. For me the best schema editor is Emacs with nxml-mode.
4. RELAX NG has the compact syntax.

> 
> In addition, I mentioned following things.
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/opsarea-6/sld5.htm
> IMO, since data models written by XML is transformable into another one
> thanks to the XML technology including WSDL, rough data modeling is
> enough as long as meaning of each parameter inside data model is well
> defined.

I think we have so far too little real-life experience and so this
discussion is rather moot. Let's go ahead and implement some data models
in our devices (we are working on one) using whatever formalism and then
compare the results to see the relative benefits and drawbacks.

Lada
 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C



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