I too have found UML extremely useful for visually representing a model. While I find it an excellent tool to build concensus around the basic organization of objects, I believe we still need a text based representation to define the actual standard for the model. The primary reason is not IETF policy but rather my personal desire to see tools that take a model as input and a MIB, PIB, or whatever as output.
I am not aware of any ASCII based UML tool. Nor do I believe that a UML in Internet Drafts is terribly useful (primarily because of the 72 column limit. However, what I have done in the past is use a UML package and generate a PDF. The PDF can be posted on a server for people to access through their browser or download, print, and paste.
Since text based models are very difficult to read and conceptuallize, I would prefer to have something like this as backup material that is referenced by a draft but is not specifically part of a standard.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 9:17 AM
> To: NIM List
> Subject: Is UML an option for the IETF?
> In regard to Tom's suggestion that UML be used to describe the
> Is it possible to use UML without graphics support? And if not,
> can we justifiably use it as the IETF method of description.
> Personally, I am getting comfortable with UML when using UML drawing
> packages (e.g. Rose). But I find it very uncomfortable to use with
> ascii characters. As far as I can tell UML is totally implementation
> dependent; i.e. if you can't draw it, you can't express it.
> Is there a way around this problem? Other by writing a graphic UML
> to ascii character drawing converter for each UML graphics program?
> Avri Doria
> +1 401 663 5024