RE: netconf WG charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 12:19 PM 4/4/2003 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>At 09:15 PM 4/4/2003 +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>AD hat off
>>
>>W.r.t.
>>> >Andy>   - Provides support for multi-device configuration transactions
>>> >Andy>     (with locking and rollback capability)
>>> >
>>> >So I probably mis-understood what the robust transaction model above
>>> >was. This probably indicates a need for clarification. Anyway, does
>>> >this item imply that locking and rollback capabilities are a required
>>> >feature? If yes, I applaud (and look forward for an xmlconf revision
>>> >that actually makes this mandatory).
>>> 
>>> These features are optional. Not all devices will be
>>> capable of supporting them.
>>> 
>>And so... We could still make them REQUIRED and those (few I hope) 
>>devices that cannot support then can then not claim compliance with
>>this new protocol. Is that so bad? It would motivate such device
>>vendors to re-evaluate if they want to add a bit of power
>>to their device, no?
>
>Locking and checkpoint/rollback capabilities can be expensive
>to implement, and/or expensive to retrofit into existing
>devices.  I would rather see these features not be mandatory, 
>and let the market decide if products without them should be
>used.  AFAIK, there are few (if any) router vendors shipping
>these capabilities today.  I think it would be reasonable
>to make these features mandatory if very few vendors were
>not supporting them today, rather than the other way around.

I should clarify this comment. I am implying
a definition of rollback that may not be shared by all.
Rollback, IMO, is the ability to revert to an arbitrary 
(user-selected) previously valid configuration with minimal 
service disruption.

Some current devices have the ability to revert to
the last configuration before changes were applied.
Some devices require a reboot and some do not. 

We should precisely define the netconf features, then
decide if they should be mandatory, conditionally
mandatory, or optional.


>There are alternatives to these features today -- the NMS
>application has to provide rollback or check for multiple
>config-writers.  I agree a device is more manageable if
>these are embedded features.  I would prefer to see multiple
>conformance levels rather than one bar, set way too high.
>
>
>>Or are you telling me that there are MANY such devices out there 
>>(that we consider part of our target set of devices to be configured)?
>>
>>Bert 
>
>Andy

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/> 


--
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/>