RE: Incomplete XML Draft

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

>
> >I think it is very important that we don't create a group that claims
> >to "own" all XML-related management technologies in the IETF.  Such
> >a group would be full of hype, but unlikely to deliver.
>
>I'd wait for the BOF to finish before talking about what the WG will
>do.  If the purpose of the WG is to provide a standard way to move
>proprietary configuration around, then it doesn't seem that interesting.
>As it starts taking on more goals, it starts to look like a replacement
>for SNMP or COPS-PR.  Perhaps there is enough interest for an XML
>encoded replacement to SNMP, perhaps not. Hopefully, the BOF will
>provide the ADs with enough data to make this sort of decision.

Obviously, if there isn't enough interest at the BOF to pursue a WG,
we won't pursue one.

However, we also want to avoid the mistake of generating false interest
at the BOF (for a general XML management WG), that doesn't translate
into people willing to deliver on a charter that IESG is willing to
approve.

It is pretty clear that we won't get a wide-open charter through the
IESG (no matter how much interest there is at a BOF), so I think it
makes sense for the BOF to discuss, among other things, how we could
limit a proposed WG charter to something reasonable.

The phased approach outlined in the document (with an intermediate step
of providing a standard way to move proprietary configuration data
around), is not the only possible way that we could limit our charter.

Do you have other ideas?  Perhaps starting with the XML <--> MIB
translation work?  What would be the steps in that plan that eventually
lead to a protocol?

Margaret





> >Margaret
>
>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/>