Re: Some thoughts about Call-home

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

Andy Bierman writes:
>Up until now, it has been acceptable in the IETF to define a
>standard protocol such as callhome, but not define any standard
>way to configure it.

A standard config is fine, but we've got a long way to go to get
there.  Developing the tools for data models (language, constraints,
etc) will take a long time.  If you are saying that these are required
before other standard capabilities can be developed, then we need to
stop talking about everything else and get to work on these tools
immediately.  We either need to migrate the MIB tools over, find
existing tools for XML, or roll our own.  None are simple options.

This is the altar that I didn't want to get left on, since the lack of
a standard mechanism for configuring event streams shouldn't block us
from defining them and using them.  We can make progress in parallel.

>I agree with you
>that a standard mechanism to call home is much more useful if
>you also have a standard way to tell the agent where home is.

Same scenario here.  The ability of the device to reach home
isn't gated by the manager being able to configure it.  The
mechanism for reaching the manager is useful in its own right.

Thanks,
 Phil

--
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/>