Re: Incomplete XML Draft

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 11:48 AM 6/25/2002, RJ Atkinson wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 10:55 , Andy Bierman wrote:
>>I'd wait for the BOF to finish before talking about
>>what the WG will do.
>
>A primary purpose of a BOF is to discuss a proposed WG charter.
>As such, a primary legitimate topic for discussion right now
>is what should go into such a charter.
>
>>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 some, maybe.  To others, that represents a well defined narrow
>problem that a WG could start with -- adding other topics later on
>(subject to normal IETF/IESG approvals) after demonstrating some
>actual success.

Some people think syntax without semantics is too narrow a charter,
and not that useful.  We already have standard protocols for
moving arbitrary data around. The charter that Ted proposed makes
much more sense, and will result in some amount of standards-based
configuration management.


>>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.
>
>I would say that I am *not* interested in this BOF/WG discussing XML
>as a candidate replacement for SNMP.  I view SNMP as plenty useful for
>monitoring.  For my part, I am not looking for a panacea NM protocol.
>Perhaps others are.

I'm not proposing this as a replacement for SNMP.  I am proposing
that the charter include mapping mechanisms between data defined
in MIBs and XML encoded protocol operations. 


>For my part, I'd be quite happy for now to have a standardised (and
>plausibly secure) way to move proprietary XML for configuration around.
>If/when that gets sorted out, then I might have interest in having some
>standards-based XML for the bits that seem common to lots of boxes.

I'm not interested in reinventing every knob that's ever been defined
in a standard or proprietary MIB.  I also think it will be useful
for applications to recognize and translate names so monitoring
data can be processed -- e.g. what interface is associated with
ifInOctets.42?  


>I've seen too many WGs with overly broad charters fail to wish that
>death on any more BOFs/WGs.

I don't think the addition of "SMI --> XML name translation" will kill
the WG. (The XML content should not be limited to translated SMI,
satisfying those who just want a standard way to move proprietary
config data around.)


>Ran
>rja@extremenetworks.com

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/>