[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>, "Balazs Lengyel" <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
- Subject: RE: Verbs Again (was RE: draft-shafer-netconf-syslog-00.txt)
- From: "Hector Trevino \(htrevino\)" <htrevino@cisco.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 13:37:22 -0700
- Authentication-results: sj-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=htrevino@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
- Cc: "Phil Shafer" <phil@juniper.net>, "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>, <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=3756; t=1152131844; x=1152995844; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2001; 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=kQy7+UYxkS6Uru9xJmjdOgZy7ppMaGOdJBfVPq1wWn5Ij4mFtWCK2uyqfhfSPYcBhbeu7L49 k3Jp+Tbm5k5SSDCfe1Jf4cuef5nXRF5idf/7DFVG9v+Pp11/k6gjs3Mw;
in-line
Hector
>
> Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> > I think before the data models themselves we will have to tackle
> > something like the SMI first, that is rules for building
> data models.
> > e.g. standard datatypes, documentation rules, etc.
>
> Not really. We have an SMI of sorts.
> The IETF uses XSD to describe XML data models.
HT: I think there needs to be the equivalent of an SMI. If this is not
in place then
there is a really good possibility that models will be different (e.g.
style, use of constructs, etc.)
Saying that NETCONF data models are written using XSD is not sufficient.
>
> Standard data types: We have the XSD types.
> I think we need some XML TCs, such as the SMIv2 data types
> and the RFC 4001 TCs. But this is an IETF-wide requirement,
> not a NETCONF requirement.
>
> Documentation rules: We have the <documentation> annotation,
> and we use it. We may need some documentation rules beyond
> what we already know from RFC 4181, but we don't have enough
> experience with NETCONF to know what they are yet.
>
> Etc.: This is the part that scares me. IMO, the best way to figure
> out if we have a good data model is to write one and see what
> happens. If we aren't competent enough to figure out how to
> write an XML data model for notification delivery parameters,
> then it would be good to know that now.
>
> I am strongly opposed to the specification of rules for
> NETCONF data models at this time. NETCONF is
> content-independent and requires only well-formed XML payload
> (+ the 'operation' attribute).
> Also, we do not have enough experience with NETCONF data
> models to define any significant rules (beyond XSD and some TCs).
HT: When is a good time to define rules (SMI equivalent)?
>
> Dave H. had a good suggestion, which I will paraphrase:
> If we can't figure out how to write an XML data model module,
> then write a MIB module first, and then figure out how to to
> convert it to XML. I'm hoping this WG will figure out how to
> write an XML configuration data model though.
HT: Writing an XML data model is not a problem but w/o the rules it is
going to be a mess. If some people decide
to write SNMP MIBs and then translate them and others write the XML data
models by hand they are going to look
completely different.
I guess a data model could be written for event notifications w/o having
the SMI equivalent/rules to move things forward but I don't think that's
a good idea in general.
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> > Balazs
> >
> > Phil Shafer wrote:
> >> Andy Bierman writes:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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/>
>
--
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/>