RE: Incomplete XML Draft

[Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>]

Hi -

> Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020625110308.021f7340@mail.windriver.com>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:08:01 -0400
> To: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
> From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
> Subject: RE: Incomplete XML Draft
> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020625074757.02418be0@fedex.cisco.com>
> References: <4.2.2.20020625101913.0224f690@mail.windriver.com>
>  <905A1C4ABF353F4C8CC16FA9F53DD0D6322620@TRIMAIL2.ad.tri.sbc .com>
...
> 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?
...

I left the workshop discussions with a sense that the 
operators's priorities were:

  1) ability to configure the network, using
  2) representations of configuration data
  3) that are human readable,
  4) support "diff"ing,
  5) and can be mapped into a sequence of commands to
     be sent over a wire or typed in at an interface

The only way that I can see "XML <--> MIB translation" having
much value in terms of these priorities is if we understand
the phrase to encompass the representation of MIB instance
data, rather than yet another representation for class definitions.

(But WSDL might provide some interesting ideas for how to
formalize the "use cases" that Andy talked about.)

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------

--
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/>