Re: Is beep really what operators would want?

[Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

> > > > > > Andy Bierman writes:
>
> Andy> This doesn't mean lots of agent code couldn't be better layered
> Andy> -- it just means there are plenty of protocol specific details
> Andy> that make the 'one piece of code' goal unrealistic.
>
> I continue to believe that proper layering of access mechanisms on a
> central resource manager is the correct approach - some access
> mechanisms might be more troublesome, others less.
The problem lies more with the organization of information.  Whereas all 
interface information might well be suited for the IF-MIB that very same 
organization does not work for configurations.  One exemplar reason for 
this is templating.  Another has more to do with seemingly unrelated 
physical device characteristics at the abstract layer that are actually 
intimately related in implementation.

I make no claim that any other information model approach can do any 
better than what SNMP's did at this time.  That is why I would rather be 
slower to standardize something new at that level and work on what we 
CAN standardize, which is indeed the access mechanism.

I do agree with you that we have an opportunity to either succeed or 
flame out, just like other approaches have, which is why a go slow 
approach is warranted.

Eliot



--
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/>