Re: Deja vu Again

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

Hi -

> Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020627114710.026a5840@fedex.cisco.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:57:59 -0700
> To: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>
> From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: Deja vu Again
> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> In-Reply-To: <200206271802.LAA08355@dorothy.bmc.com>
> 
> At 11:02 AM 6/27/2002, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >Hi -
> >
> >> Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020626171514.04980a08@fedex.cisco.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:18:35 -0700
> >> To: Randy Presuhn <rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com>
> >> From: Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
> >> Subject: Re: Deja vu Again
> >> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> >> In-Reply-To: <200206270008.RAA05515@dorothy.bmc.com>
> >...
> >> We should support real requirements.  Every vendor is going to need
> >> their own namespace(s) and schemas, just like we have now with 
> >> enterprise MIBs.
> >...
> >
> >Gack.  At least with CIM/XML, whether it's a standard object
> >definition, an extension, or something purely proprietary,
> >it's still the same XML schema.  For every gizmo under the
> >sun to have its own XML schema would be leaping in the wrong
> >direction.
> 
> Maybe our terminology is out-of-synch.
> The XML structure within a PDU is the same for everyone,
> but some of the elements and their semantics will be different
> from vendor to vendor.  How is this any different than
> VENDOR-X-FOO-MIB and VENDOR-Y-BAR-MIB? The structure of a
> varbind list in an SNMP PDU is the same in every case, but the
> contents and the semantics of the contents are not the same.
> 
> This is what it means to standardize the mechanisms and not
> the content.  This is better than legislating that the 
> mechanisms will remain useless until standard content is
> available.
...

I have a hard time reconciling this with your earlier statement
that "every vendor is going to need their own namespace(s)
and schemas".

There are at least three different DTDs/Schemas that we could
be talking about in xmlconf, and we need to decide which ones
we're going to do:
    - schema for the basic protocol operations
    - payload metaschema
    - schemas for managing particular gizmos

I hope we're agreeing that it's the first two and not the
third that we're talking 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/>