jagana at us.ibm.com
Tue Nov 18 11:08:45 PST 2003
Without getting into the merits/demerits of DCML,
I don't think I would categorize DCML into the set of IPMI, HPI etc or SNMP
DCML is not a protocol like SNMP or HTTP but it is simply like any other
(SyncML, HTML, XML or WML) defining the grammar to represent the
and use some other related protocols (such as HTTP, WSP) to transfer that
across the network. These two (mark up language and the protocols) are, I
consider them, separate.
<rusty at linux.co.intel.com> To: Adriano Galano <adriano at satec.es>
Sent by: cc: dcl_tech_board at osdl.org, cgl_discussion at osdl.org
cgl_discussion-bounces at lis Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] DCML
11/18/2003 10:10 AM
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:28:57PM +0100, Adriano Galano wrote:
> Hi all:
> Would be DCML [
> http://news.com.com/2100-1013_3-5108436.html?tag=nefd_top ] part of CG
> Linux specs?
> Maybe it would make sense in the Data Center Linux project. But IMO
> interoperability would be one layer also in the CG effort.
"Data Center Markup Language".... oh, man, looks like yet another mechanism
for modeling a system (including operating system and hardware.)
Lets see... we have (in no particular order):
* SNMP (with MIBs for everything from IPv6 to a candy machine)
* CIM (Including WBEM which also has an XML grammer)
* HPI (which will probobly have to provide a remote protocol in the next
* IPMI (with it's IPMI LAN protocol)
* What was the Microsoft XMLish modeling technology?
... and now ...
Am I forgeting anything? It would be nice to put all of these techologies
in perspective in the 3.0 spec. DCL should also have the same view of the
universe (even if the recommendation on which technology to use is
* Build a grammer, and solution will come
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion