Re: Deja vu Again

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 01:38 PM 6/27/2002, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>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.

I'm not sure what a metaschema is.
If it means the payload will contain an opaque element like 
  <command>bunch of proprietary text</command> 
then I don't think we agree.  I would rather see something like:

  <command xmlns="http://www.acme.com/commands";>
     <acme-top-level-element>
         <acme-nested-element>
            bunch of proprietary text or maybe
            some more nested elements (parameters)
         </acme-nested-element>
     </acme-top-level-element>
  </command>

Andy



> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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/> 


--
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/>