Re: Capabilities and MIBs

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hi,


I want to follow-up on the namespace vs. module identity issue.

I like the idea of identifying the module, independent of its
namespace, in case namespaces aren't used. (!)

However, in order for an implementation to differentiate
data models from multiple organizations within the same
<config> element -- well, namespaces have already been invented for that.
(I can use an "owner" attribute instead of NS, but that's not standard.)

So knowing the module ID is not good enough.
You need to know the namespace to use with it.

I propose the following conventions (for comment, write-up TBD):

1) Agents SHOULD the advertise data model modules they support
  Managers MAY advertise modules (but why?)

2) The format for a data model module capability URN SHOULD be:

  urn:<orgname>:params:netconf:module:<module-name>[:<module-version>]

  e.g.  urn:madynes:params:netconf:module:bgp:1.0

3) The namespace URN to use for a particular module SHOULD be:

  urn:<orgname>:params:netconf:ns:<module-name>[:<module-version>]

  e.g.  urn:madynes:params:netconf:ns:bgp:1.0
       
  The extra "params:netconf" in the string makes IETF and vendor strings
  consistent.  Not sure how much this matters.

  If a hard-wired URN for namespace is not acceptable, then some
  extension to the <capability> element is needed to associate
  a namespace with a module.

4) SNMP MIB conversions are not standardized, but a convention for
  a module name could be:

  urn:<orgname>:params:netconf:module:<module-name>[:<last-updated-time>]

  e.g.,  urn:ietf:params:netconf:module:RMON2-MIB:9605270000Z

  This allows MIB modules that are not in RFCs to specify a version.
  Not sure this helps at all without a SMIv2 to XML translation standard.


Comments? 
Waste of time on CLRs?
Experimental? BCP? Informational? Normative?


Andy

> 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</capability>
>    <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/>