[Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Thu, 21 July 2005 02:19 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvQf9-0006Rj-Rh; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:19:51 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvQf6-0006MZ-SG for rfid@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:19:50 -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 WAA29693 for <rfid@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [204.9.221.21] (helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvR90-00005I-DZ for rfid@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:50:45 -0400
Received: from [66.30.121.250] (account margaret HELO [192.168.1.105]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 446258 for rfid@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:13:31 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06200796bf04a720001b@[192.168.1.105]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:19:17 -0400
To: rfid@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
Cc:
Subject: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary
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
We've had some discussion on this list about XML encoding vs. binary encoding... I'm not sure that we are in agreement on all of the related points, but the concerns with XML seem to be code size on the reader and protocol overhead on the wire. These concerns can be minimized by the use of a restricted XML subset, such as canonical XML (see RFC 3076). However, there still seem to be some concerns along those lines. The only advantages that I remember being discussed for a binary encoding were the complement to the concerns with XML: smaller code size on the reader and less protocol overhead. I think, though, that our discussions have missed a major benefit of any text-based encoding (whether a protocol-specific text encoding or canonical XML): the ability to access the device using text processing tools (such as Perl scripts) and/or for a human to interact with the device directly. In 2002, the IAB held a Network Management workshop that is documented in RFC 3535. I would suggest that folks on this list read this report which can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3535.txt?number=3535 One of the interesting findings of that workshop was that one of the significant barriers to the use of SNMP as a configuration or control protocol is that it uses a binary encoding, which means that SNMP-specific client software (an SNMP browser or manager) is needed to interact with the device via SNMP. This prevents SNMP access using text processing tools or via human interaction. I would not like to see the industry create the same problem with an RFID control protocol. If there is real evidence that canonical XML would require too much code size on the reader and/or would result in an unacceptable level of protocol overhead, perhaps we could consider a protocol-specific text-based encoding (similar to FTP, SMTP and HTTP)? I don't believe that parsing a well-defined text-based encoding would require much more code than processing a binary encoding. And, in some cases a text based encoding would actually result in less data on the wire -- for instance a 32 bit integer with the value of 3 would be encoded in one byte of text ("3"), while it would require 4 bytes in binary encoding ("0x00000003'). Personally I like canonical XML, because I think it strikes a good balance between being human readable and machine-parsable. I also like the fact that the syntax is already well-defined. However, I think that well-defined, protocol-specific textual encodings could also achieve that balance, perhaps with less impact in the areas of concern (code size and protocol overhead). What do others think? Should we at least consider a text-based encoding? Margaret _______________________________________________ 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