Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary
Marshall Rose <mrose+internet.ietf.rfid@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Fri, 22 July 2005 02:47 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvnZo-0007ZH-4M; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:47:52 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvnZn-0007ZC-5S for rfid@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:47:51 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA12808 for <rfid@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [24.244.171.76] (helo=mail.sarbserve.com ident=root) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dvo3w-0003Rv-0n for rfid@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:19:01 -0400
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (mrose@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sarbserve.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j6M2jJ5Z032071; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:45:20 -0700
In-Reply-To: <p062007c3bf05ec0041ed@[192.168.1.105]>
References: <0E03681B885F3B4296B999E34435A16E01234C2B@ms08.mse3.exchange.ms> <p062007c3bf05ec0041ed@[192.168.1.105]>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <B327225C-65DB-44B2-859C-F645C2A36AA1@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Marshall Rose <mrose+internet.ietf.rfid@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Subject: Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:17:40 +0530
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rfid@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rfid@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Control and Access of Infrastructure for RFID Operations Discussion List <rfid.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rfid>
List-Post: <mailto:rfid@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid>, <mailto:rfid-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rfid-bounces@lists.ietf.org
> So, I will restate my opinion that we should not lightly develop an > RFID reader management protocol that can only be access from a > specialized client. i guess we'd need to agree on the meaning of specialized before agreeing on this point. > To your point about enumerated types, etc.... There is no reason > why a text interface couldn't allow well-defined strings to be used > for those enumerations (EPC0, EPC1, EPCG2, etc...), rather than > requiring the client (whether it is a piece of middleware, a Perl > script or a human typing at an SSH prompt) to send numerical values. the problem, i think, is that the XML compromise, like most compromises, doesn't really solve anything; further, like most compromises, it works worse than most purist approaches. it's certainly better than binary if you're going to type-in commands via telnet or ssh. the moment you have to start matching elements, and are typing more than a few of them, you need to have a tool do the typing. as soon as you have tool do it, you've lost the text advantage because it's just as easy for a tool, perl-based or not, to spit out binary as xml. my experience, which admittedly is dated, is that text works for debugging simple protocols like smtp. as soon as you introduce nesting, you lose the type-in advantage. /mtr ps: people who complain about the binary nature of snmp are actually complaining, whether they know it or not, about ASN.1/BER, which define how to describe and encode SNMP packets. i really should have listened more to chuck davin 20 years ago... _______________________________________________ Rfid mailing list Rfid@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid
- [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Frederico, Gustavo
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Rob.Buck
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary David Husak
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Marshall Rose
- [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Stephane Bortzmeyer
- RE: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- Re: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Juergen Schoenwaelder
- [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- Re: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- RE: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- Contradictions (Was: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. … Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- RE: [Rfid] Re: XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Marshall Rose
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Rob.Buck
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Bud Biswas
- Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Arjun Roychowdhury
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Scott Barvick
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Howard Kapustein
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Rob.Buck
- RE: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary Suresh Bhaskaran