RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb

["Faye Ly" <faye@pedestalnetworks.com>]

Yoshifumi,

Shouldn't we work on the requirement first or does this architecture
document include requirement or goal?  

Thanks.

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Yoshifumi Atarashi [mailto:atarashi@ebina.hitachi.co.jp] 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:15 AM
To: gww@nortelnetworks.com
Cc: abierman@cisco.com; wchen@tri.sbc.com; xmlconf@ops.ietf.org;
atarashi@ebina.hitachi.co.jp; ray@atarashi.net
Subject: Re: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb

From: "Glenn Waters" <gww@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:34:06 -0500 

So we are thinking XML conf architecture.
We'll write new version
internet-draft(draft-atarashi-xmlconf-architecture-XX).
Please give us some comments.

   Yoshifumi Atarashi

> Yow! I agree completely.
> 
> Said very succinctly, we need a framework with:
> - transport
> - session
> - security which includes authentication, privacy, and access control
> - protocol operations
> - schema definition language (e.g.: XML schema)
> 
> We do not need common models to start. Having just the above framework
will
> allow for access to information that is easy to parse and perhaps easy
to
> use -- a big step over where we are today with CLI, SysLog, etc. which
are
> difficult and error prone to parse.
> 
> In the future we can start to think about whether we want to define
common
> models.


--
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/>