I think anyone with intimate experience of the Web Services standards experiment (trying to use XML as if it was a Turing machine) would have extreme doubts about any proposal to impose such a requirement. It was not for no reason that many people came to refer to the Web Services family of standards as "WS-splat". The words "small" and "xml schema" don't really belong together, Regards Brian Carpenter On 02/08/2012 18:12, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> We should be talking >> nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that fits all. > > Just to clarify what I asked about .. I am not looking for a single tool > or single protocol to be used to configure everything. > > I am asking for small building block like xml schema (or something > similar) to be part of each new IETF proposal or protocol change. IMHO > only that can allow any further more fancy abstractions and tools to be > build and used in practice. > > Best regards, > R. > > > >> Hi, >> >> The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda >> concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for >> management protocols. >> >> >> My personal take is that no one protocol, or one data modeling language >> can match the operational requirements to configure and manage the wide >> and wider range of hosts, routers and other network devices that are >> used to implement IP networks and protocols. We should be talking >> nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that fits all. However, >> this is a discussion that just starts. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf >> Of >>> Robert Raszuk >>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM >>> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> Subject: Basic ietf process question ... >>> >>> All, >>> >>> IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions, >>> Security Considerations, Refs, etc ... >>> >>> Does anyone have a good reason why any new protocol definition or >>> enhancement does not have a build in mandatory "XML schema" section >>> which would allow to actually use such standards based enhancement in >>> vendor agnostic way ? >>> >>> There is a lot of talk about reinventing APIs, building network wide >> OS >>> platform, delivering SDNs (whatever it means at any point of time for >>> one) ... but how about we start with something very basic yet IMHO >>> necessary to slowly begin thinking of network as one plane. >>> >>> I understand that historically we had/still have SNMP however I have >>> never seen this being mandatory section of any standards track >> document. >>> Usually SNMP comes 5 years behind (if at all) making it obsolete by >>> design. >>> >>> NETCONF is great and very flexible communication channel for >>> provisioning. However it is sufficient to just look at number of ops >>> lists to see that those who tried to use it quickly abandoned their >>> efforts due to complete lack of XML schema from each vendor they >> happen >>> to use or complete mismatch of vendor to vendor XML interpretation. >>> >>> And while perhaps this is obvious I do not think that any new single >>> effort will address this. This has to be an atomic and integral part >> of >>> each WG's document. >>> >>> Looking forward for insightful comments ... >>> >>> Best, >>> R. >>> >> >> >> > >