[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Incomplete XML Draft
On Tuesday, June 25, 2002, at 03:56 , Andy Bierman wrote:
I'll wait for the BOF to see what all the attendees think.
I don't think your opinions represent those of all network operators.
I'm quite sure that there is nothing that all network operators
will agree upon. The pool of operators is large enough that
there will be lots of views on anything.
I'm also pretty sure that this BOF will be light on operators --
travel budgets having been cut all over. (There is a probability
that I won't be there in person either, giving you something
to look forward to. :-)
There are plenty of proprietary MIB objects for configuration.
Varies by vendor of course. In my experience, not generally
enough of the right objects to be useful in automating configuration
of network boxes.
I'm thinking about an application which wishes to monitor with SNMP
and configure with XML. It needs to know how to translate the '42'
in ifInOctets.42 to an interface name in XML.
The applications I'm familiar with in that area currently grab data
via SNMP, make decisions, then alter the configuration stored in an
RDBS (often a SQL database), the new official config generally gets
pushed out via (expect + Tcl + CLI + SSH).
It is that last bit (expect + Tcl + CLI + SSH) that might be replaceable
if there were a standard way of moving proprietary XML config data
around.
I'll abide by the majority consensus, as determined at the BOF.
If the majority thinks SMI->XML name translation should be part
of a separate WG, then that's fine with me.
Should be easy to get your way then. Operators are basically never
a majority of attendees at any IETF session (even if they were
to all agree with themselves).
Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com
--
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/>