Hi,
This is a good starting point for an outline. Why don't we take this
to the Apps Discuss list (discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) unless anybody
objects? I know some people there don't read the IETF list, and
anybody who's on the IETF list and not there now knows where
discussion might occur.
You might call for participation, because without people like you
contributing text and volunteering to edit and review, it can't get
done :)
Thanks,
Lisa
On Sep 20, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Tom.Petch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>; "ietf" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 9:19 PM
Subject: Re: XML updates Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-simple-xml-patch-
ops (An
Extensible Markup Language (XML) Patch Operations Framework
Utilizing XML Path
Language (XPath) Selectors) to Proposed Standard
I would be happy to encourage work on IETF-wide guidance for XML
usage (I guess that's what I'm doing now?). The Apps area has an XML
directorate and supposedly we have some XML expertise to call on --
sometimes we do XML usage reviews for the other IETF areas.
Lisa,
I have seen references to the XML directorate before but have not
knowingly (in
Routing or Ops) seen output from it. What I have in mind, what it
might perhaps
do, is provide guidance - or to say that there is no clear guidance
- in areas
such as
- Schema language (XSD, RELAX NG, ...)
- namespaces (overuse of)
- namespace prefix standardisation
- element or attribute or text to instantiate an object
- object identification (uniqueness, persistence, mutability,
multiplicity of
..
- using containers to provide scope for vendor extensions
- selecting, adding, deleting nodes with XPath, filter expression,
X.....
- tables and table indexing
- aggregation of objects for bulk operations
- specifying conformance
- versioningof object definitions
- access control to objects
I see WGs struggling with these types of issues (although the WGs
themselves may
not agree with my perception that it is a struggle)
At the back of my mind is the difference between ASN.1 and SMI (as
used in MIB
modules). Cutting down on the permissible ASN.1 constructs has
made MIB modules
much less complex than they otherwise would have been (as described
in RFC1155,
a brilliant piece of work).
RFC3470 is good, but I think that there is now a need for something
more.
Tom Petch
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf