Eliot Lear wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:Dave H. had a good suggestion, which I will paraphrase: If we can't figure out how to write an XML data model module, then write a MIB module first, and then figure out how to to convert it to XML. I'm hoping this WG will figure out how to write an XML configuration data model though.This would indicate we've come full circle. We're here in part because MIBs failed miserably at configuration. And if we spin in circles, that would indicate that we are better buying rather than building.
Not really. What (I think) Dave meant is that if the constructs are not very complex, then SMIv2 can describe the data model in a way the IETF already understands. This is better than standing around wondering how in the world can we define a data model. I agree with you from the POV that I want to break out from the "N-ary table of simple types" as the only tool in the box. However, I don't want to stop everything and reinvent the SMI and XSD. (We are already reinventing notifications -- that should be enough for now. ;-) I think we will figure something out at the interim. Nested XML isn't that hard, and neither is a data model for notification delivery.
Eliot
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/>