On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 01:28:23PM +0100, Martin wrote: > > > > Do you mean to tell me that XML is _not_ taking over the world? > > > In some applications. I'm more interested in lower level software. > > > There is no XML version of machine code or IP - and something tells me > > > there never will be :-) > > Would RFC3252 change your mind? > I stand corrected *bows head to your supirior knowledge* > > BUT > > I think this RFC is aimed in completely the wrong direction. A neat and > standards compliant form of notation - I can see the use. Althought I > would say that tcpdump / ethereal do it quite well already. Perhaps as > a way of storing record of TCP/IP... then maybe... XML is good for > storing structured data so... perhaps.
IP over XML is good for specifying NAT rules in xsl ;-) I think this RFC is mainly aimed at its release date Frank > > But not as an actual working protocol as suggested by this RFC. A 20 to > 30 fold increase in bandwidth useage for the same degree of service, > having to replace all switching and routing equipment - it's just not > practical. > > Plus I don't see that any of the problems that it claims to address are > actually problems: > "dependencies on proprietary and hard-to-understand binary protocols" - > IMHO TCP/IP is neither, > "eliminating developer time spent figuring out the intricacies of each > new protocol" - how many people routinely write software for an average > machine connected to a network that actually needs to play with TCP/IP > at this level? > "mitigates concerns over "network vs. host" byte ordering which is at > the root of many network application bugs." - it's simple enough really, > use htonl, etc. or Sun RPC or ... this is not the size of problem that > needs this size of solution - it's not really that big a problem at all > - there is already a standard for this sort of thing. > > Finally "Security considerations that apply to IP, TCP and UDP also > likely apply to BLOAT as it does not attempt to correct for issues not > related to message format." - IE use IPv6 > > My initial example was wrong but thank you for providing a fine example > of why XML is not suitable for all tasks - even in an ideal world. > > Sorry about being completely OT. I again suggest anyone wanting to > continue this joins me in doing so off list. > > Sweet Dreams, > - Martin > > -- > Martin > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Seasons change, things come to pass" > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
