Re: b/w example values

[Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org>]

Hi!

> Our needs differ.  My end-users really do care about bandwidth and cpu
> issues.  In fact, they care so much that it's unlikely they'll even go
> with this protocol in the first place unless the compression really
> does make it close enough to binary encoded protocols that they'll be
> happy.

> low-power, low-bandwidth, low-connectivity,
> frequently-dropped-packets, ...

Ah . . . . !

(Compress/uncompression of xml is going to take cpu and power as well
. . .)

> However, in xml that encoding is quite a bit bigger by the way if you
> include the tags:
> 
> % foreach i (1 2 3 4 5)
>   echo "<ipCidrRouteMetric$i>-1</ipCidrRouteMetric$i>" >> data
>   end
> % wc -c data
>     220 data
> % gzip data
> % wc -c data.gz
>      81 data.gz
> 
> (The ascii encoding is > 2.5 times larger even when compressed.)

I think this example is more applicable to xml/no-xml discussion.
Defaults/no-defaults probably wont change this ratio either way.

> Would you believe some of my environments deal with 128kb.  Heck, some
> are still using 50 baud modems (but fortunately, I don't need to worry
> about them).

Some people still choose to live in the stone age . . .

> [btw, I don't think we need to argue about how lame SNMP is at
> encoding data too...  It has its drawbacks as well that are very well
> known.  Many papers have proven this, but we're not discussing SNMP here] 

I think its still a relevant example of encoding efficiency and
overhead.  Since we dont have operational experience yet with netconf,
any estimates we use would be guesses.  Looking around for analogous
problems/data is a time-proven approach . . . .

In summation, I feel your argument best sums up the to-xml or
not-to-xml argument.  I'd further argue that netconf might not have
ever been appropriate as xml may be too fat for your environment
regardless of defaults/no-defaults.  Once one has gone the xml route,
defaults/no-defaults probably dont alter the fatness of xml very much
at all.

Thanks for your clarifcation on the environmental issues you are
looking at.  Perhaps bring those up earlier next time . . . :)

Bobby

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>