[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Capabilities and MIBs
I believe it's a good thing.
Would not it be useful to include a last-updated-time parameter in the
format for a data model module capability URN? Like
urn:<orgname>:params:netconf:module:<module-name>[:<module-version>][:<l
ast-updated-time>]
I would like to avoid future CLRs about how we sub-version
work-in-progress data-models.
Experimental by now, Normative if it catches and especially if we decide
to standardize data models some time.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 9:52 PM
> To: Vincent Cridlig
> Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Capabilities and MIBs
>
> 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-updat
> ed-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</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/>