RE: netconf WG charter proposal

["Chen, Weijing" <wchen@tri.sbc.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de] 
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 1:20 PM
To: Allen, Keith
Cc: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: netconf WG charter proposal



To tell the truth: I believe that only one protocol will survive in
the long term. If the IETF manages to create a new XML-based protocol
which the operators like so much that they push their vendors to
provide solid interoperable implementations, then SNMP is just legacy
and might disappear from operator networks faster than some people
might think.

[Chen, Weijing] Which is a welcome result from our point of view.


Allen> Or will I have to maintain some type of mapping between the
Allen> identifiers used by XML and those used by SNMP?)

To tell the truth: I believe that such mappings will at the end be
unavoidable. Avoiding such mappings means to carry SNMP/SMI naming
restrictions forward which the operators very well dislike. Given the
fact that operators are crucial to the success of a new protocol, we
should think twice whether we not better go ahead and address their
needs and overcome some ugliness of the past.


[Chen, Weijing] Why is it unavoidable?  For configuration, I could use
<rpc>
	<edit-config>
	...
		<interface>Ethernet0/0</interface>
	...
	</edit-config>
</rpc>

For notification, I could use
<rpc-notif>
	<cause>linkDown</cause>
	<source>
		<interface>Ethernet0/0</interface>
	<source>
<rpc-notif>

It is pretty straightforward, isn't it?

--
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/>