[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris
Hi,
To me, a protocol with no data modeling language and no data models is
close to worthless as a standard. It provides only a "bucket
transport" protocol where the contents of the bucket are proprietary.
I agree the netconf WG needs to focus on the protocol issues,
motivating independent implementations, and starting discussions on
partial locking and other issues that were punted to get 1.0 out the
door. I support Andy and Simon in this.
A Netconf SMI is necessary to allow the development of standards-based
data models, and a NETMOD SMI should be done in a separate WG from the
protocol. If the Netconf WG decided to not try to start a NETMOD WG, I
think that is a mistake.
I recommend starting with an SMI that can map to existing SNMP
information, since there is a wealth of data models already available,
researchers have already developed tools that automate the
translation, and Netconf implementations could use these data models
to demonstrate that the Netconf protocol works properly. SNMP and
SMIv2 are showing their 1980's roots, so we should work on defining a
Netconf SMI in XML to provide additional capabilities, such as nested
data structures. As the SMIv3 effort showed, the SNMP-adapted ASN.1
SMI has too much baggage to be able to design a backwards-compatible
SMIv3 easily. Developing a new SMI in XML will give us a better chance
of advancing the state of the art in NM data modeling.
I also believe that we should start work on SNMPv4 - a version of SNMP
based on XML messaging rather than ASN.1 messaging, leveraging
existing transport layer message security, using an XML-based data
modeling language, and using an access control method that is easier
to read than VACM's OID hierarchies and can be utilized by SNMP and
Netconf, thus sharing many ease-of-use design decisions between the
monitoring and the (separate) configuration protocol standards.
David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: netconf
> Subject: RE: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris
>
> hi
>
> Actually, my remembrance is that a number of items were
> dropped solely as a
> scoping exercise. Note because they were not felt to be achievable
or
> necessary.
>
> If there is working group consensus to take on additional
> work and the AD is
> sufficiently convinced of its value and achievability, are we
> then all on
> board?
>
> Just a note that the current Netmod work provides a framework
> to define
> content but does not actually define any content.
>
> Sharon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 12:19 PM
> To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]
> Cc: netconf
> Subject: Re: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris
>
>
> Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>
> >hi
> >
> >So, as I indicated in Minneapolis, I plan two presentations into
the
> >Paris meeting. One on the Netmod work proposing that gets
> added to the
> >charter and another on asynchronous messaging with a similar
> >objectives. The technical work is being progressed as we speak.
> >
> >Are you suggesting that you would like to see the proposed updated
> >charter before Paris?
> >
> >
> Simon and I both agree that the NETCONF WG should concentrate
> on finishing
> the 1.0 document set and then take a little break -- like
> until the RFCs are
> actually published -- before charging ahead with more
> features. We would
> like to make sure the IESG approves the work we've done so far
before
> building on that work. A little time for implementation,
> inter-operability
> testing, and deployment would be a good idea as well.
>
> Before this new work, we would of course need to update the
> WG charter, and
> to do that, we need consensus on that charter. Neither Simon
> or myself is
> eager to take on the NETMOD work in its current form. The
> deferred protocol
> features like notifications can be started if there if WG
> consensus.
>
> Of course, every feature on that list is there because it is
> difficult,
> contentious,
> and the WG couldn't reach agreement on it. I'm not convinced
> we will do any
> better the second time around. (Prove me wrong -- write a
> great draft that
> wins the WG over.) Solution proposals full of the same holes
> as the first
> time around aren't going to become WG drafts just because they
exist.
>
> More on NETMOD: My preference is for NETCONF to be content-neutral,
> like the document claims. I would like to see other SDOs and even
a
> NETMOD
> WG in the IETF define mappings between their data modeling
> constructs and
> the NETCONF protocol (operations and transaction model). I
> do not think
> a one-size-fits-all solution will ever work, or that the
> first cut at a
> data modeling
> standard will be long-lasting. Personally, I haven't seen
> anything yet
> that really
> removes enough complexity to be interesting, but I'm confident in
the
> next few
> years somebody will figure it all out.
>
> >Sharon
> >
> >
> Andy
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
> >Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:08 PM
> >To: netconf
> >Subject: no NETCONF WG meeting planned for Paris
> >
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >At this time, it appears all WG milestones will be completed
> before the
> >next IETF, so there are no plans to hold a NETCONF WG meeting at
the
> >Paris IETF.
> >
> >We understand that some people want to continue adding
> features to the
> >protocol and/or work on standard data models, but this work
> would need
> >to be chartered first -- a process that has not been
> started, and not
> >likely to be completed before the next IETF.
> >
> >
> >Andy and Simon
> >
> >--
> >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/>
> >
> >
> >--
> >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/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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/>
>
--
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/>