RE: netconf WG charter proposal - data model or not?

["Faye Ly" <faye@pedestalnetworks.com>]

Randy,

I really don't think setting and retrieving of the state data is a big
hole that is not being addressed by both network device and NMS.  SNMP
serves the purpose quite nicely with the exception for 'accounting' type
of data.  But I don't see a lot of screaming and yelling for this type
of support anyway.
(Do you?)

Your statement 'overly describing something we don't do' is a very sharp
observation!  We are suffering from lacking a very clear vision on how
this configuration protocol is going to turn out without using any data
model.  I think of the data model as the use case that needs to be feed
into the design as the requirement.  But I am also seeing quite a few NM
veterans willing to put in their time to get the working group and
protocol going.  Note that each brings with him/her experience that will
help sanity check the protocol once we get it going.  As I said before,
we all bring certain data model in our minds to examine how the protocol
fit anyway.  I actually don't see it as a big issue anymore.  But please
correct me if I have interpreted your comment wrong.  

Best,

-faye




-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 6:55 AM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal

</ad-hat>

> If I understand well what you are saying, separation between the
> configuration and non-configuration data is something that needs
> to be realized both at the level of the retrieval mechanisms in
> the protocol, as well as in the data model. I suggest that the
> later be specifically added to the 'requirements for standard
> data models in order to fully support the Netconf protocol' in
> the netconf charter proposal.

something keeps bothering me here.  i am not sure i can fully put
my finger on it.  but it's something like worrying that we are
trying to overly describe what we *don't* do.  can we just talk
about configuration, and not get into characterizing what other
types of data there might be?

or are we seriously considering that the wg should also cover
setting and retrieval of other data, e.g., state data such as
interface counters etc.?

or maybe my discomfort is due to lack of clue.

randy


--
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/>