RE: netconf WG charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>]

At 02:59 PM 4/14/2003 -0700, Faye Ly wrote:
>Andy,
>
>If XML monitor/notification is standardized with configuration, yes.  Or
>else if we are trying to identify which SNMP notification matches to
>what interface or instance in the configuration, no.  Ethernet0/0 is
>still a simple case.  Take a look at the CIDR table and also table
>indexed by DisplayString.
>
>I honestly think that having to focus on the configuration only is a
>well defined goal for this discussion group and standardization can be
>achieved.  If this group is trying to do all three, XML SMI seems to be
>un-avoidable.  What do you think?

This WG is not trying to create standard data models or a new
data modelling language.  That will need to be done at some point,
probably by a different WG.  The protocol does not rely on any
particular data model design.  We will attempt to identify any 
coupling between the protocol and data modelling capabilities,
but not design a new SMI.


>-faye

Andy



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:abierman@cisco.com] 
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:21 PM
>To: David T. Perkins
>Cc: Chen, Weijing; xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: netconf WG charter proposal
>
>At 01:02 PM 4/14/2003 -0700, David T. Perkins wrote:
>>HI,
>>
>>Syslog... Let's see, the payload of syslog messages is unstructured
>>text, and there is no standard for them. And there is no standard
>>for documenting the payload. Or did I miss this. (If so, please
>>send me a URL or two). So you are saying that completely unstructured
>>and undocumented text is the direction for the future?
>
>I don't think Weijing is suggesting that we use unstructured text 
>instead of XML encoding.  Look at the example in his previous mail:
>
>    <rpc-notif>
>        <cause>linkDown</cause>
>        <source>
>                <interface>Ethernet0/0</interface>
>        <source>
>    <rpc-notif>
>
>He is saying (and I agree) that the XML data model does not
>have to use ifIndex to identify the interface.  The agent
>probably needs to know (internally) the ifIndex mapping for 
>Ethernet0/0, but that doesn't mean that the XML data model 
>must use it.
>
>People have been incorrectly assuming that the XML data model 
>will need to be tightly coupled to the SMI data model.  
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>>At 02:38 PM 4/14/2003 -0500, Chen, Weijing wrote:
>>>Why do the mapping at all?  Why can we ditch the SNMP altogether,
>>>configuration through XML, trap through syslog over XML, or structured
>>>native XML traps over XML.  There is no much detailed trap information
>from
>>>SNMP at the beginning.  All we got from most of equipments are
>linkUp/Down,
>>>etc.  Most of equipments have more detailed information from syslog
>rather
>>>than SNMP trap.
>>
>>Regards,
>>/david t. perkins 
>>
>>
>>--
>>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/> 


--
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/>