John,
Yes, choosing a syntax and …, doesn’t enable interoperability. I agree. But would you agree with me that XML is good alternative to CLI/TL1/syslog? Given that we can come up with a framework to do it? And push the management model for later and perhaps a totally different working group?
-faye
-----Original Message-----
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,
-----Original Message-----
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----- -- archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/> |