RE: Separation of protocol and information model

["Jeff Johnson" <jjohnson@airflownetworks.com>]

> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
> >>>>> Chen, Weijing writes:
> 
> Chen> What is exact the problem with SNMP?  If it is the problem of
> Chen> RowStatus and StorageType, then why throw out the other good
> Chen> part of SNMP like separation of protocol operation and data
> Chen> model?  Like old proverb said, don't throw baby out with dirty
> Chen> water.
> 
> SNMP problems are well documented. Read the latest issues of the
> Simple Times or read the failed EOS and SMIng WG mail archives as well
> as the SNMPv3 archives to understand what is broken and to get a
> feeling why the SNMP community is too deadlocked to fix this stuff
> in order to make it work for configuration.

Forgive me for speaking out from the sidelines, especially since I
haven't read the two drafts in detail, but my question is how does
netconf solve the SNMP problems?  From my perspective, one of the
hardest problems an snmp implementation had to solve was the fact that
in an SNMP set PDU you could get varbinds from a number of different
mibs, and it was difficult to meet the "as if simultaneous" rule.  This
problem doesn't become any easier just because you use a different
transport to deliver the data.

/jeff

--
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/>