Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Phil Shafer wrote:

> Balazs Lengyel writes:
>  
>
> > On the other hand a fault or maintenance type notification might result in further 
> > processing and actions so these should be kept in a structured XML format.
> >    
>
> What does XML give you here that SD wouldn't?
>  

An encoding that a wide variety of tools support for NMS development.
That is the rationale that got us started with XML in the first place.
It is important to lots of people.

However, I sort of agree with you.  The history of tools development
is one of putting up with the deficiencies of the "current approach"
until something better comes along.

In this case, all XML buys you is the encoding of the individual message 
fields,
which is a small fraction of the work needed to do anything interesting with
the data (I submit that a log-dumper doesn't qualify as interesting).
But -- this is a lot more than nothing -- if you don't really care about
the 2X or 3X in encoding size overhead.

I wonder if  the "dual syntax" approach of RelaxNG (XML and Compact syntax)
would work here?  Sharon's suggestion of an XML format could coexist with
this one,  if someone did all the work to spec it out. 

The problem with your theory is the premise that people using XML care about
encoding and transfer efficiency.  It would hard to come up with a
syntax that was more verbose or more complicated to encode/decode
than XML.  It's not built for speed.  (Not built for comfort either ;-)


> Thanks,
> Phil
>  

Andy


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>