[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Verbs Again (was RE: draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.txt)
- To: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>, "Phil Shafer" <phil@juniper.net>
- Subject: RE: Verbs Again (was RE: draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.txt)
- From: "Hector Trevino \(htrevino\)" <htrevino@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:59:59 -0700
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-3.cisco.com; header.From=htrevino@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>, <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=4269; t=1151517600; x=1152381600; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=htrevino@cisco.com; z=From:=22Hector=20Trevino=20\(htrevino\)=22=20<htrevino@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20Verbs=20Again=20(was=20RE=3A=20draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.tx t); X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dy4yI4Szl7FXIIPvlf7ZkSiFgpTU=3D; b=LVvdj7jkotdNaB97b1yaNecQ/pUl2FeqzqELfXua5qZCsAqguaIJxQ2a1iOj6j7tCoE+Anc0 or9OVz6m6+eXzYmQ+cbwLQAMn5yfeZR2U7IcHL6d5O18x/nrw7JmBMk9;
Andy,
I'm finally catching up on e-mail. Looking at the discussions and the
agenda for Montreal I was wondering if the data modeling discussion
towards the end of the agenda is only wrt notifications or a more
general discussion?
"- Data Model and XSD Issues
- Data model design
- XSD correctness
- Need for 'min-access' and 'max-access"
thanks
Hector
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:36 AM
> To: Phil Shafer
> Cc: Sharon Chisholm; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Verbs Again (was RE: draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.txt)
>
> Phil Shafer wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
> SNMP has problems as an API for configuration that NETCONF
> addresses fairly well. However, the basic concept of a WG
> reaching consensus on the syntax and semantics of individual
> standard knobs for standard protocols is still valid.
>
>
> >
> >> 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.
> >
>
> I know we should be working on data modeling instead of
> notifications but we aren't. That is still no excuse for not
> using the standard <edit-config> and <get> operations.
>
> I don't think data organization should be that hard, and we
> don't have to organize the entire world right now.
> We just have to organize the netconf protocol data.
>
> I use the following organization (which can be nested and repeat)
>
> <application-name xmlns="owner-namespace">
> <parameter-set-name>
> <parameter-name>
> </parameter-set-name>
> <monitor-set-name>
> <mon-object-name>
> </monitor-set-name>
> </application-name>
>
>
> E.g.;
>
> <netconf xmlns="netconf-data">
> <notification-config>
> ....
> </notification-config>
> <notification-mon>
> ...
> </notification-mon>
> </netconf>
>
> (read-only data can be defined in a parameter set, but the
> monitor set is supposed to be used instead for data sets that
> are all read-only)
>
> Something simple like this should be good enough to get us started.
>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Phil
> >
> >
>
> Andy
>
> --
> 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/>