RE: simplified XSD issue

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

W.r.t. extensibility, it would be good to read/consider
  draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-01.txt
It is still a draft and may change quite a bit.
But it gives you some insight in the current thinking we 
have in IESG on this topic.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Goddard [mailto:ted.goddard@windriver.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 31 oktober 2003 0:41
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: simplified XSD issue
> 
> 
> 
> The previous question on XSD alternatives for NETCONF
> was mired in detail; here is a simplified version
> that focuses on one of the issues:
> 
> The NETCONF operations will initially be defined
> by a single XML schema document.
> 
> Should it be possible to define additional operations
> by publishing additional schema documents, or should
> extension require an entirely new version of the base
> document?  Should extension be prohibited?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ted.
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>
> 

--
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/>