I gave such a Sunday tutorial at IETF70. The slides are here
(somewhat dated, but still useful I’d say):
http://www.tbray.org/tmp/IETF70.pdf
-Tim
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote:
>> From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
>>
>> What surprises me and many others is tha
> From: Mark Nottingham [m...@mnot.net]
>
> What surprises me and many others is that people are still using it
> and promoting it, when it's well-understood by almost EVERYONE who was
> involved in using XML for protocols in the past ten years agrees that
> it's a mistake.
It sounds to me like w
Forwarding a couple more:
http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonHome
http://argo.sourceforge.net/
Cheers,
On 04/08/2012, at 1:54 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
>
>> On 03/08/2012, at 8:09 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>
Very much; when it becomes a "document" (e.g., mixed markup), XML is a
> On 03/08/2012, at 8:09 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> >> Very much; when it becomes a "document" (e.g., mixed markup), XML is a much
> >> better choice.
> >
> > The other interesting case is where large amounts of data arrive in a
> > stream.
> > SAX and SAX-like libraries makes this
Martin Thomson wrote:
On 4 August 2012 08:52, Mark Nottingham wrote:
The other interesting case is where large amounts of data arrive in a stream.
SAX and SAX-like libraries makes this easy to implement with XML. I hope
there's an equivalent for Json; if not there needs to be.
Funny you mentio
Probably digressing here (from our previous digression), but I find a hybrid
API best. E.g., the python pulldom API, which is event driven until you find a
node you're interested in, whereupon it can give you an object.
Should be even easier with json, since it can just give back a data structu
On 4 August 2012 08:52, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> The other interesting case is where large amounts of data arrive in a stream.
>> SAX and SAX-like libraries makes this easy to implement with XML. I hope
>> there's an equivalent for Json; if not there needs to be.
>
> Funny you mention that, I was
On 03/08/2012, at 8:09 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>> Very much; when it becomes a "document" (e.g., mixed markup), XML is a much
>> better choice.
>
> The other interesting case is where large amounts of data arrive in a stream.
> SAX and SAX-like libraries makes this easy to implemen
> On 03/08/2012, at 5:59 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> >> Specifically, it's very common for people to try to use schema to inform
> >> "binding" tools into specific languages. However, the underlying metamodel
> >> of
> >> XML, the Infoset, is both complex and a poor fit for most languages, so
> >> b
On 03/08/2012, at 5:59 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> Specifically, it's very common for people to try to use schema to inform
>> "binding" tools into specific languages. However, the underlying metamodel of
>> XML, the Infoset, is both complex and a poor fit for most languages, so
>> bindings take "sh
> XML Schema is grossly over-engineered for its purpose; being the subject of
> requirements from not only the document markup field, but also databases and
> object models, it's a twisted monstrosity that tries to do many things, and
> fails at most.
Agreed, and I would add that it is seriously l
Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> 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 communica
uld be talking
>>> nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that fits all. However,
>>> this is a discussion that just starts.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Original M
Hi -
> From: "Andy Bierman"
> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
...
> NMS developers need to spend too many resources on translating
> naming and other d
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:31:42PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> But if we are at this phase I think creating a network elements
> abstraction layer and be able to configure/monitor any protocol and
> service at the unified way is one of the building blocks we should
> start with. And of course
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:22:10AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Aha .. so you are saying that MIBs are not mandatory Very
> interesting. So I guess SSH to the routers and box by box cli
> provisioning is here to stay for a while I think :(
>
Robert,
you may want to take a closer look at
On 8/2/12 9:25 AM, "Robert Raszuk" wrote:
>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 ?
For docs that use XML, r
On Behalf
>Of
>> Robert Raszuk
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Basic ietf process question ...
>>
>> All,
>>
>> IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions,
>> Security
; From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
>> Robert Raszuk
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Basic ietf process question ...
>>
>> All,
>>
>> IETF documents have number of
Hi Juergen,
Many thx for the great suggestion !
However perhaps you are much more knowledgeable in that area and could
recommend which model fit the best the requirement to standardize
configuration of any new protocol or protocol extension at least in the
space of routing and routing protoco
Hello Brian,
That's an enormous leap that I just don't understand. Most protocols don't
need that sort of configuration complexity.
H I am of the opinion that most protocols requires configuration. I
am also of the opinion that each vendor chooses an original way to
configure their netwo
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
Hi Joe,
Many thx for your comments.
Perhaps my intentions were not very well described. Personally I am not
that much stuck on plain XML schema .. it could be expressed in any
language IETF would choose to use. The point is not how to do it .. but
to do it at the moment of bringing new protoc
s.
Regards,
Dan
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Robert Raszuk
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Basic ietf process question ...
All,
IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>>> Robert Raszuk
>>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
>>> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
>>> Subj
I am discussing this very topic in the Ops meeting today at 3. Please
come by to discuss.
--Tom
On Aug 2, 2012:9:25 AM, at 9:25 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> All,
>
> IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions, Security
> Considerations, Refs, etc ...
>
o: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: rob...@raszuk.net; ops...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon
k
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Robert Raszuk
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Basic ietf process question ...
>
> All,
>
> IETF documents have number of mand
hi robert
> 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 ?
xml is just a way to package the incompatibilities
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
