Re: Verbs Again (was RE: draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.txt)

[Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>]

Andy Bierman writes:
>This is no different than standard MIB modules.

We _have_ to be different than the process that made standard MIBs
if we want to be usable for configuration.  We can't follow the
same path and expect that folks will use ours just because it's in
XML.  There has to be more.

>IETF WGs have managed for years to define standard MIB objects,
>even though proprietary MIB objects also exist.

If you see this as successful (for configuration), why are we here?

>There are many people (including myself) who believe that
>standard configuration data models are a critical component
>to a complete standards based solution for network configuration.

I completely agree that standard configuration data models are
critical, but I do not agree that they are trivial.  I think this
is the next big hurdle for this working group.  The question on the
floor is whether we should stop other work until we have a real
meta-model for configuration and a way of specifying standard data
models that will work in the real world.  If so, let's stop talking
about notifications and get our butts in gear on modeling.

Me, I don't want to wait for it.  I want to see usable capabilities
for doing operational tasks that applications need in order to
manage devices.  Things like file transfer, call-home, software
installation, reboot, and system status.  I think we can progress
in these areas in parallel.

But if the concensus if that we can't, we should stop talking about
other topics while we work on modeling.

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/>