Subject: RE: Proposed Update to Netconf Charter

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:30:59 +0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> I would prefer "A concrete data model" over "An XML schema" 
> to reduce the number of different terms for the same thing 
> down to one. If we have concensus to use XML schema, then I 
> am also fine with using XML schema terminology everywhere. I 
> just dislike the mixture of terminology here. I rank this 
> medium high - I do believe that we need to write concrete 
> examples to see whether our guidelines work, but I am not 
> sure netconf itself has something of reasonable complexity to 
> configure.
>  

I believe that I understand what you are saying here, but let me ask you
the question - do you believe that we have something better than XML
schemas to express the first instances of data model that we want to
create? I would rather go ahead and define some workable example that
would also serve as proof of concept for the framework rather than
engage in a long discussion about what language data models need to be
expressed. 

Dan

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:31:39 +0200

> engage in a long discussion about what language data models need to be

I want consistent language in the charter - this was my prime 
objective when I wrote my comment. 

At some point in time we need to decide whether we use XML schema
or not. Perhaps charter discussion is the right time to take this
decision so that the WG does not get deadlocked on this.

Is XML schema the right choice? It might be. I personally would 
not object to it - I believe XML schema is workable and achieving 
concensus to move forward in a timely manner is important.

Personally, I prefer to read and write schemas in compact relax
ng since the syntax is close to compact BNF notations and my 
standard working environment has nice tool support for it. But as
stated above, I do realize that my preferences may not be shared
by the majority - and I do not want to hold off work due to this.

Does this clarify my position?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany