Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-weijing-netconf-interface-00.txt

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Andy Bierman" <abierman@cisco.com>
> To: "Allen, Keith" <Keith_Allen@labs.sbc.com>
> Cc: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>; <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:28 AM
> Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-weijing-netconf-interface-00.txt


...
> >The challenge is defining *objects* with a "data definition language," as
> >opposed to an object definition language.
>
> This point is not very clear at all.  Do you have any examples
> of 'objects' that cannot be defined with an XSD?  What are
> you proposing netconf uses for defining data models?  Note that
> this is somewhat outside the scope of the WG.  We will use
> XML Schema to define the netconf protocol syntax, but this
> does not mean that all data models will be defined that way.
> However, we can make use of valid XML constructs, and expect
> that any reasonable data modeling language will support them.
...

An object definition language has facilities for representing semantics
and relationships that go well beyond those of a data definition language.
Two examples:  ASN.1 vs GDMO, and ASN.1 vs SMI(ng).  I don't know
what Keith has in mind or whether he's proposing anything, but
an XSD would not be terribly well-suited to representing the semantic
constraints on the objects referred to by the arguments of a method
associated with an object.  But, as you say, all this practical stuff is
out of scope, so I'll shut up.

Randy

Randy



--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>