RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

I think we need to keep in mind that XML presents a bit of a paradigm
shift from what we have known. Yes, common models are important, but
they are almost always too late for companies and, thus, incompatible
with the vast majority of products when completed. It just takes too
long to get them standardized via the process of compromise, and even
longer to get them right.

What XML offers is a large set of tools that allow translation between
different vendor's models. These models can be developed independently
around a specific technology, and, if deployed using XML, can still be
made to interoperate where there is commonality. 

So your schema can define "<IntFace> UP </IntFace>" and mine can define
"<Interface> ON </Interface>" and XSLT can be used to translate between
these. Or, better yet, when a standard is completed, vendors can easily
provide translations from it to their existing models.

IMHO, this group should focus on determining which XML schema definition
language IETF wgs will use, define the basic reusable data types useful
across IETF wgs, define the operational model for XML transactions, and
select a common transport. Just get the foundation in place & let the
models work themselves out over time in individual wgs and let XSLT be
the glue between the early products and late standards.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faye Ly [mailto:faye@pedestalnetworks.com]
> 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/>
> 
> --
> 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/>

--
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/>