Re: XML versus SOAP/WSDL Performance

[Jon Saperia <saperia@jdscons.com>]

Glenn,

I have mostly been watching this discussion. I wanted to empahsize how 
important your comments are from the perspective of building a management 
application. The name space problem is a critical problem. If there is to 
be a new standard way to configure systems based on XML, fine. To omit 
from the basic design of that standard, issues to deal with all the things 
we expect from SNMP like asynchronous messaging and data collection, would 
be a big mistake. 

/jon
On Monday 23 September 2002 11:40 am, Glenn Waters wrote:
> > -----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

-- 
Jon Saperia                         
				
saperia@jdscons.com
Phone: 617-744-1079
Fax:   617-249-0874
http://www.jdscons.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/>