Re: netconf and SNMP evolution?

[Bobby Krupczak <rdk@krupczak.org>]

Hi!

>>Has this group formalized any kind of relationship to work on SNMP
>>evolution?  
>
>There is no work on SNMP evolution. The EOS and SMING WGs
>have been terminated.

Yup, saw that.  Shame.

>There is strong desire not to generalize the netconf protocol
>so it attempts to address every aspect of network management,
>especially in version 1.  Notifications are a secondary
>feature in netconf, and if the WG cannot agree on how to
>support them, then they will get dropped.  In any case,
>the netconf protocol will focus on a generic mechanism
>to deliver asynchronous messages, without regard for
>the notification content.

Thats fine.  I am working on some next-generation management
technologies as part of company-2 and I am hoping to avoid
re-inventing the wheel.

>>Presumably, with the overlap (e.g. Dave, Andy, Bert) in membership
>>between this work and the SNMP community, one would think this
>>accomplishable.
>
>The work in the SNMP community (if there is any) doesn't
>have much impact on the netconf WG, since netconf is not
>intended to be a replacement for SNMP.

OK; that clarifies it, thanks.  

Given the discussion I've seen so far, and that which I am starting to
see in the archive (thanks for pointing it out), you guys may very
well indeed have an enormous challenge in reaching consensus.  Good
luck.

Bobby

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>