I disagree.
First, where's the paradigm shift? Second, what you're describing in translation is exactly the same work that is necessary to build a common model in the first place. I don't see how you can say that building a common model is impossible, but having vendors agree on translations is. Third, I don't see how different working groups in isolation can do either of these.
Finally, you say:
"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."
I honestly don't see how this works, helps, or benefits anyone. Choosing a syntax, and defining the data types used in that syntax, doesn't enable interoperability. Selecting a common transport is immaterial, it just moves bits around. And the hope that "the models will work themselves out over time in individual wgs" is simply naïve - witness the ongoing painful arguments in CCAMP, for example, between "IETF" and "ITU" "models".
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: Durham, David [mailto:david.durham@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Faye Ly; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Xmlconf (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Perspective: XML's ticking time bomb
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/>