Re: Use of XML for MPEG Network config

[Martin Stiemerling <stiemerling@netlab.nec.de>]

Hi,

Joerg's comment on NETCONF might be very helpful to look at, since NETCONF 
is exactly dealing with device configuration (primary routers, but should 
not be limited to).  They use XML based message encoding try to included 
mechanisms to load several configuration, activate them only if completely 
loaded and a roll-back function.

Probably, it is wise to first collect the required functions for the device 
configuration.

 Martin

--On Mittwoch, 6. Oktober 2004 14:14 Uhr +0200 Joerg Ott 
<jo@Informatik.Uni-Bremen.DE> wrote:

| Regarding XML, it would be great if we could first formulate the
| problem and then figure out whether XML is an adequate solution.
|
| That said, there is some work ongoing in the IETF that could be
| relevant here (that actually uses XML): the NETCONF WG
| http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netconf-charter.html.
| I haven't followed the work in the Ops area that much though.
|
| Joerg
|
|> I agree that XML is now becoming a common configuration language, and
|> this is certainly one way we must explore in the ipdvb WG: both for
|> setting up the L1/L2 information at the Receivers and IP Gateways and
|> also for address resolution. It would be interesting to explore
|> alternatives for the ways in which XML could be used to map IP addresses
|> to PIDs.
|>
|> Can I ask everyone on this list to send an email if they know of any
|> existing work (or work-in-progress), especially if it is  relevant to
|> MPEG-2 transmission networks?
|>
|> Thanks Marie-Jose for starting this topic, and offering to write a draft!
|>
|> Gorry
|>
|> Marie-Jose Montpetit wrote:
|>
|> > List:
|> >
|> > I am putting together a short draft for the next IETF on the use of
|> > XML  for MPEG network configuration. This is part of the extension
|> > work of a  larger IP Over DVB ESA sponsored study as well as my other
|> > R&D activities.
|> >
|> > The poster child right now is address resolution as this is part of
|> > the  WG charter, but I can see this approach as being useful for a
|> > larger set  of application. Our initial view is to have 3 types of
|> > services: - a static version based on local configuration that can be
|> > accessed via  the web
|> > - a subscriber service
|> > - on demand service
|> > We expect to be able to use the same semantics and have investigated
|> > transport methods based on SIP, SOAP/UDP and SOAP/SIP. I know we are
|> > not  probably the only people on the list thinking about this as the
|> > above IP  mechanisms for network control are fairly popular right now.
|> >
|> > I welcome comments or real life implementations of this.
|> >
|> > Thanks
|> >
|> > Marie-Jose
|> >
|> >
|> >
|>
|