[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb

John/Andrea,

Without entering into the MOF debate, I think you would agree with Andrea's major point that it would be nice if we had a common language. within the XML that could be spoken, and not just widgets, and that if you're going to use widgets, then being able to express CIM (or pick your favorate common information model (lowercase)) in those widgets is a good thing.

This group (XMLCONF) has not debated model specifics -- at all.

Eliot



John Strassner wrote:
I don't see how CIM accomplishes this. There are no managed objects for
representing fundamental constructs, such as a physical port of a device or
the logical interface (or sub-interface) of a device. You claim that a
protocol endpoint is an interface - but it isn't. It is a general purpose
communications interface. From the Network 2.6 MOF:

// ==================================================================
// ProtocolEndpoint
// ==================================================================
[Description (
"A communication point from which data may be sent or "
"received. ProtocolEndpoints link router interfaces and "
"switch ports to LogicalNetworks.") ]

Furthermore, there is no public CIM class to represent a device interface.
So please tell me how CIM enables the developer to get from an XML
representation of (for example) a change in the configuration file of a
device to a model representing that change.

Finally, DTDs are useless. And WSDL is independent of XML, so I'm not sure
why you even brought that up.

regards,
John
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: john.strassner@intelliden.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrea Westerinen [mailto:andreaw@cisco.com] Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 2:30 PM
To: Faye Ly; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Xmlconf (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb


This is exactly what the DMTF is trying to do with CIM - create an OO model
for managing end to end (provisioning, monitoring, faults, ...). The model
is tied together across management domains, vendors, and products. Whether
the model is encoded in XML or something else is secondary. The fact that
concepts like systems, services, interfaces (protocol endpoints), etc. can
be modeled and generically understood (have inherited properties and
behaviors) is much more valuable than the encoding. After all, "XML is just
a syntax in search of a semantic."

However, if you are looking for XML, then there is an XML DTD for CIM - and
also work-in-progress regarding a CIM XML-Schema, and discussions of
CIM-WSDL.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xmlconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-xmlconf@ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of Faye Ly
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 8:51 AM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Xmlconf (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb


Bert,

That is a very good article. I admit I went back to this mailing list's
archive and got lost in the multiple mail threads. So what is the
conclusion on moving forward for this group?

I think I tend to agree that XML is a superior language over MIB but the
fact that we are missing 'management object' on many things such as -

Service provisioning/ subscriber provisioning
fault isolation that is transparent to the underlying transport method ...

Sort of similar to the effort of snmpconf (for provisioning only) that is
currently missing. I actually think it is in-relevant if we do it using XML
or the good old MIB. The important thing is to come up with consensus on
the management model. If XML can help with the majority of the people to
better understand and thus expedite the process, then let's go with XML. I
think this is actually the time to organize the effort around coming up with
standards for:

1. provisioning
2. fault isolation
3. performance monitoring
4. othrs such as file management, upgrade and etc ...

And let each group come up with the management model first, XML and/or MIB
later?

What do you think?

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 3:51 AM
To: Xmlconf (E-mail)
Subject: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb

Here is another one to take into account:

Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-961117.html

It is a few months old... not sure how I all of a sudden
ran into it. Oh well...

Bert

--

--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>