Re: Do we need data modeling rules like an SMI

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>]

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> > Some other topics I would like to see stated:
> > - A method to extract the data model from the device in an XSD format 
> > (Individual devices might decide that they don't want to expose this 
> > even with the strictest access control, but generally I think this would 
> > be good.)
> 
> 
> IMO this is way out of bounds. It forces
> everybody to use XSD for all their data models,
> and the agent memory/storage requirements would force
> this to be optional anyway.

Of course this could be an optional capability.  If you don't have a
XSD describing the data, don't use this capability.  On the other
hand, *if* the box has the XSD, it would be nice with a standard way
of getting these XSDs, either inline or through an URL.  (would it be
a misuse of the <get> operation to retreive the inline XSDs using
<get>?)

I don't agree with the statement that "it forces everybody to use XSD
for all their data models".  We use a much simpler language for the
data modelling part, where we also specify e.g constraints that cannot
be expressed in XSD.  From these data model we generate XSDs which
describe the instance documents that are sent on the wire.


/martin

--
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/>