Re: Protocol Versioning [was: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-sacred-protocol-bss-01.txt]

Gareth,

'Fraid I at least don't like these suggested changes!

For versioning - there's already a namespace & beep profile, what 
more's needed?

I'd also rather not start using abtract types in the schema since
I don't see much saving and in any case, I noted an open issue in
the draft (whether DTD or schema should be normative) that should
be closed before we try using (what I think is) fancy schema stuff.

Finally, I note that the DTD automatically generated from schema that
my tool produces is total garbarge and drags in all sorts of dsig
stuff, has a lot of repetition etc. So no, I don't think a schema
is sufficient is there's a set of folks who prefer DTDs. Another
reason for us to first decide which (DTD/schema) to make normative.

Stephen.

Gareth Richards wrote:
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> None of the PDUs described in the current ID contain version information.
> I suggest that this may be needed to support future version of SACRED.
> 
> I was also wondering if it might be worth placing these attributes and any
> other information common to all message types in abstract base types
> similar to the RequestAbstractType and ResultAbstract type of XKMS as this
> may make the schema simpler.
> 
> For example,
> 
>   <complexType name="RequestAbstractType" abstract="true">
>     <sequence>
>       <element ref="sacred:ProcessInfo" minOccurs="0"/>
>     </sequence>
>     <attribute name="MajorVersion" type="nonNegativeInteger" use="required"
> fixed="1"/>
>     <attribute name="MinorVersion" type="nonNegativeInteger" use="required"
> fixed="0"/>
>   </complexType>
> 
>    <complexType name="ResponseAbstractType" abstract="true">
>     <sequence>
>        <element name="Status" type="string" minOccurs="0"/>
>     </sequence>
>     <attribute name="MajorVersion" type="nonNegativeInteger" use="required"
> fixed="1"/>
>     <attribute name="MinorVersion" type="nonNegativeInteger" use="required"
> fixed="0"/>
>   </complexType>
> 
> There are a couple of other issues related to schema.
> 
> I noticed that you added XML complexity as a major open issue.  Could you
> expand on this.
> 
> Do we really need to maintain a DTD and a schema? Since it is possible to
> generate a DTD from a schema then wouldn't a schema be sufficient? It seems
> as is not just unnecessary but also potentially harmful due to possible
> discrepancies.

-- 
____________________________________________________________
Stephen Farrell         				   
Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
Dublin 8.                mailto:[email protected]
Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com