> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 17:34
> To: Remco van de Meent
> Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: XML versus SOAP/WSDL Performance
[...]
> I was one of the people who brought up SNMP and monitoring at the
> xmlconf bof...
>
> I think the most important point here is that we have a standard
> mechanism to convert SNMP data naming to XML, so an application
> can correlate XML and SNMP data. The ability to use XML for
> monitoring is much less important. I would expect that applications
> would use XML monitoring for a small amount of data, and continue
> to use SNMP monitoring for large, or frequently polled, monitoring tasks.
>
> Andy
Andy, I think that we mostly agree although I think that the ability to monitor using XML is very important. I believe that XML should be available to configure, retrieve status, and retrieve statistics. The reason that I believe this so strongly is that configuration is tied to status/statistics and that more than one protocol to tie the two areas together is problematic.
It is problematic since there are almost always fundamental problems mapping between two naming models. The amount of code and complexity that is required to map between naming models is non-trivial.
By example, let's say that a routing table entry is configured. One of the first things that an application may want to do after configuring the entry is to check the status of the routing table entry. This means retrieving the status and potentially some statistics. I can't imagine that a management application would want to configure the entry one way then switch to another protocol and naming model to get the statistics. That would just be broken.
Cheers, /gww