Re: netconf WG charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 06:32 PM 4/3/2003 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
></ad-hat>
>
>> Configuration of networking devices has become a critical requirement for
>> operators in today's highly interoperable networks.
>
>configuration of networks of devices
>
>> The Netconf Working Group is chartered to produce a protocol
>> suitable for network configuration, with the following
>> characteristics:
>> 
>>    - Provides a clear separation of configuration data
>>      from non-configuration data
>
>is this necessary to the task?  clearly universally achievable?

It was listed as an operator requirement at the NM workshop.
It could be easy to achieve. It was never realized with SNMP.


>>    - Is extensible enough that vendors will provide access
>                      be willing and able to ^
>>      to all configuration data on the device using a single protocol
>
>>    - Has a robust transaction model, based on remote procedure 
>>      calls (RPC)
>
>s/based on/using/
>
>i.e., is rpc merely an element of the transaction, or a direct
>mechanism for providing transactional semantics?
>
>>    - Can be easily integrated with existing configuration
>>      database systems
>
>rofl :-)

Maybe not easy, but dBase vendors have APIs to support XML.
Not true for SNMP or proprietary CLI.


>>    - Suitable for IP-reachable network devices
>
>hmmm, are we sneaking in non-internet devices here?  e.g., i
>configure my 10kv power station and transmission system via ip?

Not really. We are focusing on networking devices,
but since we are independent of the data model,
and if a toaster can connect to an IP network
and implement the netconf protocol, then why prohibit this?


>> fully addressed to develop standard data models, only a small part 
>> of this work will be initially addressed by this group:
>>    - identification of principals, such as user names or
>>      distinguished names
>>    - XML namespace conventions
>>    - XML usage guidelines
>
>you lept right into xml as the solution here without previous
>warning

what should I write?
Clearly, there is a requirement to use text (UTF-8) encoding.
Why would we invent a new special purpose encoding for
netconf? Anyone suggesting we do this will likely get
shouted out of the room.


>> The working group will use the XMLCONF Configuration Protocol
>
>s/use/base its work on/
>
>>   MAY 03    Working Group formed
>>   JUL 03    Submit initial Netconf Protocol draft
>>   JUL 03    Submit initial Netconf over BEEP draft
>
>optimistic

I'm rarely accused of that :-)  How about August or September,
with the rest of the schedule pushed out to match.


>randy

Andy


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