RE: Incomplete XML Draft

["Chen, Weijing" <wchen@tri.sbc.com>]

> If the purpose of the WG is to provide a standard way to move
> proprietary configuration around, then it doesn't seem that
> interesting.

to whom?  i suspect that operators might find it of interest, as it is a
step for which they have been asking.

[Chen, Weijing] We wouldn't be interested, and may even oppose such
approach. We already got N^2 interfaces problem, and don't need just another
"standard" interface for the same old task. What we need is "the" standard
interface that can support multitudes of management functions including
configuration, fault, and performance of IP equipments. By the way, how does
SNMP handle fault function, a couple of traps? How does SNMP handle
performance function, a couple of PM MIBs? How much more work is devoted to
fault and performance besides MIB writing? Why can't XML took same approach:
craft a common DDL (schema template, i.e. SMI), a common protocol
(messaging, transport), then writing different data model (schema) for
different things (config, trap, PM) as an ongoing continue work.



--
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/>