[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Incomplete XML Draft

On Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 03:18 , Andy Bierman wrote:

Some people think syntax without semantics is too narrow a charter,
and not that useful.
I wasn't aware that even syntax was on the table. The notion that
some of us had put forth as an initial goal was simpler than that:
- standardise a way to move proprietary XML to/from switches and routers


We already have standard protocols for
moving arbitrary data around.
...which many operators don't believe are useful for configuring network equipment.


The charter that Ted proposed makes much more sense, and will result in some amount
of standards-based configuration management.
...which will likely be as widely ignored by operators as the current SNMP approach,
because it doesn't solve the problems that many operators are saying they have today.

I have this wacky idea that the IETF ought to tackle the OPS/NM problems that
many operators say they have -- rather than tackling the OPS/NM problems that
IETF folks think are interesting but lack widespread current operator interest.
Please forgive me for being consumer oriented.


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.

I don't see how that helps with configuring anything but a DOCSIS CM
-- and I doubt seriously that the DOCSIS operators will be changing
their provisioning systems anytime soon.


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'm not even thinking about monitoring yet; box configuration
is the *only* target in *my* mind for the near-term.   Clearly
your mileage varies.


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.)
I wouldn't object to it as "possible future work" -- provided the IESG
keep it VERY explicitly out of scope for an XMLconf WG until some
MUCH MUCH simpler stuff (e.g. moving XML to/from network boxes) has been
visibly successful.

Perhaps what you and others might consider is going to the IESG and proposing
a *separate* WG on "SMI-->XML name translation". I don't know what the IESG
would say, but asking can't hurt (much).

Regards,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com


--
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/>