Re: Incomplete XML Draft

[Ted Goddard <ted.goddard@windriver.com>]

On Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 09:08 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 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?
Here's a possible interpretation of the phased approach:

1. SOAP/WSDL definitions supporting SNMP semantics
   (perhaps leaning more towards GetBulkRequest than GetNextRequest)
2. XML encoding of MIB modeled data to be used in 1. and other
   protocols.
3. Extend the "SOAP API" from 1. to support desired semantics and
   a richer (than 2.) XML encoding; define this encoding.
4. Proceed with modeling work (XML schema definition?) that
   takes advantage of 3.

(1. and 2. are actually needed at the same time, but maybe 1.
is easier to agree on quickly?)

I agree this is the risk:

> [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.
Have we gained anything by step 2 above?  A little bit: it should be
easier to implement a reliably manageable device, and it should be
possible for step 3 to be made up of many small "extension" steps
that add capability (for instance, if the device supports transactions,
and it sees one in the SOAP header, it should obey).

Is it even possible for us to avoid creating yet another interface to the
same old model as the first step?  Isn't it necessary because
that's the smoothest way to get people to adopt the new standard?
(It's also the easiest way to be initially productive on the
new standard.)

Regards,
Ted.


--
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/>