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-----
From: John
Strassner [mailto:John.Strassner@intelliden.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 3:49
PM
To: 'Durham, David';
Faye Ly; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Xmlconf (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Perspective: XML's ticking
time bomb
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/>