Re: Agenda for NETCONF WG session at IETF #71

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Phil Shafer wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> > I don't think this is really fair to the new co-Chairs.
>
> Don't mean to be unfair to anyone, I'm just looking
> to see if we can get an idea of what our obstacles
> are and if we know what we should be doing about them.
>
> My top-five goes:
> a) DML
> b) open source toolkits in common development languages
> c) evangelism/training/documentation/tutorials
> d) blank
> e) blanker

gosh, me too! ;-)

> I'd love to know what (d) and (e) should be, but, well
> I don't see it.  Do folks feel that the charter items
> are really seen as obstacles to using netconf?

We already had this debate and the charter is what it is.
We also need to limit the scope of this discussion to
what should be done in the IETF, i.e, new or updated standards.

My top 3 issues (also nowhere on the radar):

 1) A NETCONF DML for non-modeling-experts, so operators, engineers,
    and IETFers can use NETCONF with ease
 2) An access control model
 3) A robust, extensible, multi-protocol NM architecture, that pulls
    together NETCONF, CLI, SNMP, SYSLOG, existing MIBs, new next-gen MIBs,
    into a secure and standard API framework.

(Yeah, right. I'll put them on my Xmas list, along with the new train set :-)


> Thanks,
>  Phil

Andy




--
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/>