[MIB2RDML] Re: [OPS-AREA] SNMP MIB to XSD mapping I-D available

["GOGWIM, JOEL GODWIN" <gogwim at unijos.edu.ng>]

I tried getting the site given but it responded page does not exist.
That is:
http://home.comcast.net/~bobnatale/draft-li-natale-smi-datatypes-in-xsd


On Wed, November 28, 2007 7:48 am, Natale, Bob said:
> Hi,
>
> For those of you on the MIB2RMDL list who have been wondering what (if
> anything!) has been going on during this long period of silence on the
> e-mail list, and for others interested in having an IETF standard
> methodology for mapping SNMP MIBs to XML via XSD for generic use by
> XML-based management applications, I can now report some progress.
>
> That progress is best represented by a new Internet Draft which is now
> available at
> http://home.comcast.net/~bobnatale/draft-li-natale-smi-datatypes-in-xsd
> -00.txt, pending posting to the IETF I-D repository following the
> imminent Vancouver IETF meeting.
>
> Dave Harrington has led this effort, starting with the XSDMI proposal
> at the Chicago IETF meeting.  As I published on this list around that
> time, it makes sense for the MIB2RMDL effort to see XSDMI as the
> essential first half of the equation (i.e., the "MIB2->" part) of
> MIB2RMDL.  Once the IETF publishes a standard methodology for the
> expression of management information described in and accessible via
> SNMP Management Information Bases (MIBs) as XML documents, then other
> groups (if desired) can undertake the second half (i.e., the "->2RMDL"
> part).  (Note that this approach also allows for multiple resource
> model mappings from the standard MIB to XSD mapping.)  Yan Li did much
> of the concrete research of multiple existing independent approaches
> for doing the fundamental datatypes mapping addressed in this draft.
> We then did a comparative analysis of those approaches, relative to the
> requirements stipulated in Sec. 3 of this draft, as a baseline for the
> specific approach this draft proposes.  This draft originated from
> draft-romascanu-netconf-datatypes, but now bears little resemblance to
> that document, due to differences in scope, structure, and content.
>
> Any errors or otherwise errant statements in the draft are purely my
> responsibility.
>
> I believe that the OPS ADs plan to allocate some agenda time to discuss
> this work at the Vancouver IETF.  I will post that scheduling info when
> it becomes available, and I will do a post-Vancouver recap message as
> soon after IETF-70 as possible.
>
> In the meantime, please feel free to raise any issues or post any
> comments concerning the draft or the plans here and on the ops-area
> list (unless the ADs give other guidance about which list(s) to use).
>
> Cheers,
> BobN
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> OPS-AREA at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>




_______________________________________________
MIB2RDML mailing list
MIB2RDML at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib2rdml