[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WSDL
>Umm. Because that would be too easy?
Sorry, I was being sarcastic, and I just don't do those smiley face things.
I do think, though, that I actually could write a WSDL description of a
netconf service like the one in the BOF slides, if it used SOAP and HTTP.
Well, give me three tries. My concern, and the reason I brought it up in
conjunction with the charter, is that I don't think I can do it for custom
RPCs and BEEP. That's why I am hoping the WG will do.
I think it would be really great if we could leverage this web service
technology that is supposed to take over the world. I think the same
reasons that have been put forward for using XML (as opposed to some other
format) on this group also apply here. Of course, if the technology simply
can't support our needs, then we have to roll our own. It seems that we
should be certain it won't work, though.
Keith Allen
SBC Technology Resources
9505 Arboretum Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 372-5741
kallen@tri.sbc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:30 PM
To: Allen, Keith
Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WSDL
At 04:06 PM 4/16/2003 -0500, Allen, Keith wrote:
>OK, I'll see the bet and raise the ante. Could you explain succinctly why
we need a new protocol at all? Why instead aren't we defining WSDL messages
for different functions, and then using SOAP bindings and UDDI to solve the
problem?
>
>regards,
>John
>
>
>
>Umm. Because that would be too easy?
Since it is so easy, how about if you volunteer to create a WSDL
version of the XMLCONF protocol so we can compare the XML messages
that would be used with both approaches? Never mind the transport
issues for now.
It seems to me there are different user communities for the
output of the netconf WG, which don't share the same goals.
One group wants to create lightweight mechanisms that can
be used to leverage existing CLI (training by operators,
code by vendors). Another group wants to leverage tools
which may already exist for application data exchange,
but are not particularly lightweight or aligned with
existing CLI implementations.
Both are valid positions, and I am concerned that we will
not be able to produce a single solution that is completely
satisfactory to both camps.
Andy
>
>
>I must say I asked my question in response to thinking about how we would
go about building applications that would use a NETCONF interface. It would
be nice to have a WSDL description we could just feed into a web services
toolkit. WSDL is extensible, though, and should allow us to write a BEEP
binding (much like we would write a SOAP binding), and then use UDDI. I
just didn't want to be the first one to write a BEEP binding for WSDL. I
actually sent an e-mail to the chair of the BEEP WG to see if anyone else
has done this. Then all we would need is a web services toolkit that
supports BEEP. Keeping my fingers crossed...
>
>
>
>
>
>Keith Allen
>
>SBC Technology Resources
>
>9505 Arboretum Blvd.
>
>Austin, TX 78759
>
>(512) 372-5741
>
><mailto:kallen@tri.sbc.com>kallen@tri.sbc.com
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Strassner [mailto:John.Strassner@intelliden.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 3:54 PM
>To: 'Andy Bierman'; Allen, Keith
>Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: charter proposal - rev C
>
>
>
>OK, I'll see the bet and raise the ante. Could you explain succinctly why
we need a new protocol at all? Why instead aren't we defining WSDL messages
for different functions, and then using SOAP bindings and UDDI to solve the
problem?
>
>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: Andy Bierman [<mailto:abierman@cisco.com>mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:46 PM
>To: Allen, Keith
>Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: charter proposal - rev C
>
>
>
>At 03:09 PM 4/16/2003 -0500, Allen, Keith wrote:
>>All,
>>
>>It seems to me, based on my admittedly limited knowledge in the area,
>>that a main output of the working group should be a WSDL description of
>>the network configuration service. Is this something that needs to be
>>part of the charter or is this something the WG would decide once it is
>>underway?
>
>This could be discussed by the WG. So far, I have only heard interest in
WSDL from one person. If there is enough WG interest in this extra
deliverable, then it could be done by the WG at some point. It could also
be done separately, outside the WG, as an Informational RFC.
>
>
>
>>Keith Allen
>>SBC Technology Resources
>>9505 Arboretum Blvd.
>>Austin, TX 78759
>>(512) 372-5741
>>kallen@tri.sbc.com
>>
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>>--
>>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/>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/>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/>