RE: What about the OAM in OAM&P

["Hare, Michael" <Michael.Hare@us.fujitsu.com>]

SW Update can affect configuration, but it's not really reflected in a 'show config' type operation (outside of a version id and maybe a date or two).
Most everything on the box either affects or is affected by the configuration. But I bet you don't want to rationalize everything back to a config change.
You'll be here much longer than you intended.

Focusing on the configuration aspects is a good idea.

Eventually, the focus will need to include these other areas. If we just did Netconf without anything else, our in-house management system would refuse to use it because they'd still have to use TL1 (or whatever) to manage the rest of the box. They don't want to do that. One box : One Interface.

Not to worry, I have no desire to de-rail Netconf with additional work. You all have enough on your plate as it is.
However, this must be a common problem for vendors implementing Netconf. I'd be open to side discussions, meaning away from this mailing list, with anyone interested in persuing other aspects of an XML rpc based management solution.

Thanks,

- m



-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:38 AM
To: Hare, Michael
Cc: Netconf Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: What about the OAM in OAM&P


Hare, Michael wrote:
> Thanks Andy.
> 
> The Notifications is what I think was confusing some of us into believing NETCONF was to be a complete OAMP solution since notification have little to do with network configuration.
> 

This is an important comment.
I agree that notifications have little to do with configuration.
SW update is much more relevant to configuration, since
(in the real world), config changes may be associated with
HW and/or SW changes.

IMO, we should either finish notifications for netconf quickly,
or drop it altogether and move on to our primary mission.

>>From what I gather from your response NETCONF is just for the configuration of the network with a bit of notification thrown in.
> 

Standards based configuration is the charter after all.
I am not opposed at all to other great features in addition
to this one.  But not instead of this one.

> Maybe there's a need for other WGs to define NETMAN, NETOP and NETADM to cover the rest. Not your problem, I understand, but I have to convience the folks here that things like software upgrades, loopbacks and such are not part of NETCONF. We will need to write proprietary RPCs for all that.
> 

It is always a good idea to make solution proposals to a WG (in an I-D),
based on experience, as well as theory.
Vendor extensions are an effective way to do that.

I won't support the chartering of any solution proposals
unless they are "functionally configurable", using standard
data models.  (So don't propose any solutions where the config
magically appears on the device -- we already have enough of those).



> Thanks,
> 
> - m
> 


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/>