RE: Capabilities and MIBs

["David B Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi,

I was asking the original poster for clarification about what they
wanted to advertise.

It is possible they wanted to advertise SNMP MIBs that they wanted to
make available through netconf.
It is possible they wanted to advertise netconf-specific data models
that are not SNMP MIBs.

I think how to advertise either is similar, and Phil's answer
addressed that.
A lot of the discussion that followed the original question, however,
is about SNMP MIBs, not netconf-specific data models.
Such responses may not be appropriate to the original question asked.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:29 PM
> To: dbharrington@comcast.net
> Cc: 'Vincent Cridlig'; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Capabilities and MIBs
> 
> David B Harrington wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Are you referring to SNMP (SMIv1 or v2) MIBs, or are you 
> talking about
> > data models designed for use with netconf?
> >
> > I think it is important to make the distinction between (SNMP)
MIBs
> > and netconf data models.
> >   
> 
> Yes please.
> Some of us want to experiment with data modeling ideas
> without being constrained by SNMP or SMI.
> 
> The original question was about advertising the data models that
> a NETCONF agent supports.  If you want to call them NETCONF MIBs,
> I don't care.  But they are not SNMP MIBs.
> 
> It was always the intent that the agent would advertise the 
> namespace URI
> of each data model it supports.  However, if you don't use a
different
> namespace for each data model, then this won't work.  You have to
> list modules by name and version, as suggested.  IMO, you need to
> also advertise the namespace used for each module.
> 
> In order for XML to work correctly, and distinguish
> (in a NETCONF PDU) between the <blah> element in the FOO-MODULE
> and the one defined in the BAR-MODULE, some mechanism like
namespaces
> is needed.  This is a standard, and we have to prevent 
> cross-organization naming
> collisions under the <config> element.
> 
> > David Harrington
> > dbharrington@comcast.net
> >   
> 
> Andy
> 
> >  
> >
> >   
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> >> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vincent Cridlig
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 5:32 AM
> >> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> >> Subject: Capabilities and MIBs
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I would like that our agent advertises its supported "MIBs".
> >> Are capabilities the regular way to do it ?
> >>
> >> Like, for example, for the agent to advertise that it 
> >> supports "bgp" MIB, "routes" MIB and "network interfaces" MIB.
> >>
> >> <hello xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> >>   <capabilities>
> >>     <capability>urn:ietf:params:netconf:base:1.0</capability>
> >>     
> >> <capability>urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:startup:1.0</ca
> >> pability>
> >>     <capability>urn:madynes:module:bgp</capability>
> >>     <capability>urn:madynes:module:routes</capability>
> >>     <capability>urn:madynes:module:interfaces</capability>
> >>   </capabilities>
> >>   <session-id>4</session-id>
> >> </hello>
> >>
> >> Is it acceptable ?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your help.
> >> Vincent Cridlig
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/>