RE: netconf WG charter proposal

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

Keith,

I can understand the admin head-ache to maintain multiple interfaces for management channels.  Some of my personal opinions:

1. XML itself is not really a suited technology for monitoring and notifying unless a well designed protocol is added to support both.  Mapping may not be sufficient.
2. A lot of standards MIBs have been defined for SNMP.  Major efforts need to be put in to convert them to XML.  This may actually kill the XML for NMS due to the fact that the scope is too wide.
3. netconf or XML is very well suited for configuration data.  It has the built in hierarchical data that is needed for configuration.  
4. If you are worrying about the maintenance cost for XML configuration channel, well, maybe we can finally get rid of both telnet/tcp and ftp/tcp(or tftp) and just use XML/[RPC]/BEEP/TCP?  SNMP stays the same with or without XML, isn't it?

The netconf charter as it stands now should be a good set to start and finish.  Being too ambitious may not be a good idea.

-faye

-----Original Message-----
From: Allen, Keith [mailto:kallen@tri.sbc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:28 AM
To: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal

> I'd love to hear from the operators regarding the desirability of distinct
> protocols for machine-to-machine configuration, human-to-machine
> interaction, and machine-to-machine monitoring.

We'd like to limit the amount of human-to-machine interaction that we need
to do, so we welcome the introduction of a robust machine-to-machine
protocol.  Our hope is that the XML interface will not lag the CLI in terms
of supporting new capabilities.  In the end, however, that will be up to the
equipment suppliers.  I tend to agree with Andy, though, that trying to
standardize a CLI would be pretty difficult.  XML is today's miracle
technology.  (I fully expect that in the next Austin Powers movie, Dr. Evil
will have a tank full of sharks armed with "XML!")  Doesn't every company
have an army of salesmen dying to get up at a sales meeting to say that
their company supports XML!?  I see this exercise as merely an attempt to
take advantage of that wave.  

We would prefer to use one protocol for both configuration and monitoring
both to limit the number of interfaces we have to support and to eliminate
the problems that crop up with trying to use multiple protocols to manage
one box.  (Will the SNMP trap that notifies me that a port has a problem
identify that port the same way that I did when I used XML to configure it?
Or will I have to maintain some type of mapping between the identifiers used
by XML and those used by SNMP?)  

We intend to push for the XML protocol to support notifications.  If and
when a WG is chartered to develop schema, we'll push that group to include
notifications or else to somehow ensure that the XML configuration schema
align with the SNMP traps.  It will probably be easier, though, if XML just
supports notifications.


Keith Allen
SBC Technology Resources
9505 Arboretum Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 372-5741
kallen@tri.sbc.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 5:25 PM
To: xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: netconf WG charter proposal

Hi -

> From: "Harrington, David" <dbh@enterasys.com>
> To: "Andy Bierman" <abierman@cisco.com>
> Cc: <xmlconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 2:47 PM
> Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal
...
> I didn't ignore the distinction between a human and programmatic
interface. The fact is,
> the CLI may be designed to be a human-interaction interface, but it has
also been
> harnessed to be a programmatic interface using scripting. For the same
reasons
> already cited, it appears to be the best current interface for
programmatic
> configuration as well, even though it is not standardized.
...

Another aspect of this has shown up in repeated statements from operators
in face-to-face meetings and the IAB workshop that they really want the
human and automated interfaces to be the same.  Or have they changed
their view on this?

The other message I've heard several times is that using different
protocols for configuration and monitoring would be undesirable.
Did I just imagine these statements?

I'd love to hear from the operators regarding the desirability of distinct
protocols for machine-to-machine configuration, human-to-machine
interaction, and machine-to-machine monitoring.

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/>

--
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/>