RE: What about the OAM in OAM&P

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

Anyone explore the DMTF (http://www.dmtf.org/home)?

It was our opinion they were making all the same mistakes the IETF made with the MIBs, i.e. we would need to restructure our data model to fit into the DMTF framework.

NETCONF is allowing us to keep our internal data model intact and while the payloads may be less standard across vendors, we will be able to implement the embedded much quicker since we can reuse much of what we had before.

- m

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Shafer [mailto:phil@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2:37 PM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: Hare, Michael; Netconf Mailing List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: What about the OAM in OAM&P 


Andy Bierman writes:
>Our focus is standards based configuration, a subject some
>vendors seem to want to leave as "TBD".

I'm not in the TBD crowd, I just don't think this is a simple
problem.  You can't just define a simple schema and force all
the world onto it.  If this worked, folks would have rewritten
their implementations to follow MIBs.

>Unfortunately, the current process and mindset for IETF data models (MIBs)
>is never going to work for configuration.

What we need is an understanding that it's not a simple problem and
a plan to simplify it, to allow for incompatibilities, conversions,
etc without losing the ability to cover the 50-80% of use cases
that are the most beneficial.

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/>