Subject: [MIB2RDML] Expressing SNMP SMI Datatypes in XML Schema Definition Language -02 draft submitted

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:16:36 -0400

Hi,

I have submitted an updated version of "Expressing SNMP SMI Datatypes
in XML Schema Definition Language",
draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-02.txt, via the Internet-Drafts
submission tool ahead of today's deadline, but had to do it via a
"manual entry" due to administrative complications (once again!), which
imposes some delays in the formal announcement process.

Pending formal publication, you can get a copy from the "staging" area
at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/staging/draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes
-in-xsd-02.txt.  If that presents any problems for you, please let me
know and I will forward you a copy directly.

This draft includes changes made for comments on the -01 version
received from Mark Ellison, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and David
Harrington, and some other fix-ups noted in the Change Log section.

I hope that this version may be ready for WG last call.  I will not be
in Dublin, however - but will try to participate remotely if possible
if this topic is discussed in the OPSAWG session there.

If anything is a hang-up, I suspect it will be in the XML registration
section ("IANA Considerations").

Please let me know your observations, etc.

Cheers,

BobN

_______________________________________________
MIB2RDML mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib2rdml

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:13:50 -0400

Hi,

I have submitted an updated version (-03) of "Expressing SNMP SMI
Datatypes in XML Schema Definition Language", via the Internet-Drafts
submission tool, but it will likely not get processed until following
IETF-72.

In the meantime, interested parties can download a copy from:

http://home.comcast.net/~bobnatale/draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-x
sd-03.txt

The -03 version has some minor fix-ups (documented in the change log)
and is being submitted now because the -02 version (which was posted
ahead of the IETF-72 cut-off time) got dropped as a result of an
(on-going) technical problem with the tool (apparently).

[I've included a couple of the NETCONF-related lists as bcc: addressees
on this, since several recent threads on those lists have mentioned the
XSDMI work.  Further discussion about this draft, however, should be on
the OPSAWG list.]

Cheers,

BobN

From: Natale, Bob 
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 7:17 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Expressing SNMP SMI Datatypes in XML Schema Definition
Language -02 draft submitted

Hi,

Cheers,

BobN

---

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:09:35 -0400

Hi Bob,

I have reviewed the -03 draft and have the following comments:
 
- In section 5.1, "Numeric Datatypes", last paragraph:  I think it 
reasonable to also include the Counter64 datatype as having "...special 
application semantics that must be considered..." since Counter32 and 
Counter64 can both wrap and suffer discontinuities.  Possibly, TimeTicks 
should also be mentioned as having special application semantics (due to 
the 'epoch' concept).  Is Gauge32 mentioned due to the 'latching' concept?

- In section 5.2, "OctetString", second paragraph says "each octet is 
encoded as two hexadecimal digits" and the third bullet indicates the 
"maxLength" restriction of 65535 octets.  However, the xs:simpleType 
"OctetString" definition in section 4 indicates an xs:maxLength 
value="65535".  If the intent is to represent 65535 octets then the 
xs:maxLength value should be twice this number, "131070".

- [more of a personal wish] In section 5.5, "ObjectIdentifier", I 
realize the text is written to be faithful to the definition of the SMI 
OBJECT IDENTIFIER.  In this regard, it is probably not appropriate to 
place support for "OID fragments" here.  I find I use a lot of OID 
fragments (1 or more subids that do not have the initial 2 subid 
restrictions) to represent instance components for a set of related 
OBJECT-TYPE OIDs.  Possibly there is a place, either in this memo, or in 
another related memo to support the notion of an OID fragment?  I 
suppose I could use the ObjectIdentifier "as is" by prepending any 
fragment with 1.1, but I regard this as a programmatic contortion with 
undesirable overhead.

Thanks for considering these two comments and one wish!

Mark

-- 
Mark Ellison                        Ellison Software Consulting, Inc.
tel: +1 (603) 362-9270              38 Salem Road
web: http://EllisonSoftware.com     Atkinson, NH  03811, USA

On 07/28/2008 01:13 AM, Natale, Bob wrote:
> http://home.comcast.net/~bobnatale/draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-03.txt 
> <http://home.comcast.net/%7Ebobnatale/draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-03.txt>
>
>  
>
> in Dublin, however -- but will try to participate remotely if possible 
> [I've included a couple of the NETCONF-related lists as bcc: 
> addressees on this, since several recent threads on those lists have 
> mentioned the XSDMI work.  Further discussion about this draft, 
> however, should be on the OPSAWG list.]
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
> BobN
>
>  
>
> *From:* Natale, Bob
> *Sent:* Monday, July 14, 2008 7:17 PM
> *To:* [email-masked]
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Expressing SNMP SMI Datatypes in XML Schema Definition 
> in XML Schema Definition 
> Language", draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-02.txt, via the 
> Internet-Drafts submission tool ahead of today's deadline, but had to 
> do it via a "manual entry" due to administrative complications (once 
> again!), which imposes some delays in the formal announcement process.
>
>  
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/staging/draft-ietf-opsawg-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-02.txt.  
> If that presents any problems for you, please let me know and I will 
> forward you a copy directly.
>
>  
>
> This draft includes changes made for comments on the -01 
> version received from Mark Ellison, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and David 
> in Dublin, however -- but will try to participate remotely if possible 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:18:37 +0200

> xs:maxLength value should be twice this number, "131070".

I think the maxLength restriction is counted in the number of decoded
bytes not the number of bytes needed for the encoding. Please check
section 4.3.3 of <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>. (I did run into
this before; perhaps it is worth adding a comment so that we do not
run into this question again - or worse someone "fixes" this later
on.)

> fragment with 1.1, but I regard this as a programmatic contortion with  

Your ObjectIdentifierFragment simply is not an ObjectIdentifier...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
MIB2RDML mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib2rdml

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:24:17 -0400

Hi Mark,

- I think that sub-section 4.3.3.1.2 of the ref Juergen cites below
contains the operative rule: "if {primitive type definition} is
hexBinary or base64Binary, then the length of the value, as measured in
octets of the binary data, *must* be less than or equal to {value};"
... the {value} referred to there is the maxLength value.

- I agree with Juergen on the "OID fragment" request.  It might be
handled somewhere else, but not in the base SMI datatypes XSD.

- For the next version (-04), I will update the wording in Sec. 5.1 to
account for all of Counter32/64, TimeTicks, and Gauge32.  You are
correct in implying that the inclusion of Gauge32 is due mostly to
historic language in earlier versions of the SMI...Sec. 7.1.7 of
RFC2578 is clear but in actuality does not impose any behavioral
semantics of note.

Cheers,
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 3:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Natale, Bob; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MIB2RDML] Expressing SNMP SMI Datatypes in XML
SchemaDefinition Language -03 draft submitted

/js

---

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:30:52 -0400

Hi Juergen,

Thanks for this reply.  My comments/clarifications are inline, below.

> run into this question again - or worse someone "fixes" this later
Good- section  4.3.3 of <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/> is helpful, 
I see now how I became confused by the current text in the second 
paragraph.  I agree with your suggestion to add some text/comment to 
clarify.
> Your ObjectIdentifierFragment simply is not an ObjectIdentifier...
Yes I agree with this- hopefully there is a proper place for defining an 
ObjectIdentifierFragment...
> /js
Thanks,

Mark