Subject: FYI: IPFIX XML work

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:45:27 -0700

Hi,

I think you should read Appendix A of the IPFIX Info Model draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipfix-info-11.txt

IMO, it would be a *really* bad idea for every std NM protocol with
DM info (snmp, syslog, ipfix, netconf, ?) to invent their own
DM language, module & life-cycle system, access control model,
core info model, naming model, and on and on...

Dan, I think you should force the IPFIX WG to break out (at least)
the core set of 'XML Simple Types' from this document
and let all the OPS-NM WGs review it and add/change it.
Then it should be published as a PS RFC, and all XML DM work
in the IETF must use those data types, if they apply.

By the time one figures out the "free-for-all" approach doesn't work,
it is usually too late to fix it.

Andy

--
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: Einar Nilsen-Nygaard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:26:18 +0100

Andy,

I agree with the concerns you express below, but I think it¹s probably
worthwhile pointing out that the IPFIX draft is primarily targeted to
providing a machine readable definition of what already exists in the
underlying netflow records and is not defining any XML data types, simple or
otherwise.

You will see from Appendix A of the draft that the data types in the ³field²
elements go no further than high-level enum tags.

While the commonality you seek for XML schemas should be pursued, I don¹t
see its direct relevance to the IPFIX draft you refer to, so I see no action
that needs to be pushed on the IPFIX WG until they decide to adopt some form
of XML schema based approach to both describing and encoding the data they
refer to.

Cheers,

Einar

-- 
Einar Nilsen-Nygaard
Technical Leader, Cisco Systems, Inc.

It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent
blindingly obvious. The cry 'I could have thought of that' is a very
popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn't, and a
very significant and revealing fact it is too. --Douglas Adams