Re: OPS-NM status

[Ken Crozier <kcrozier@cisco.com>]

Steve,


>7. Devices must at least present the appearance of a file system.

Does this mean that the config file should be a hierarchy of files or that 
the devices must store the config in a file system ?

>8. Devices must not naively autoconfigure.

Does this mean that if they use some kind of intelligence they can auto 
configure :-)
Can you give an example of what is meant by 'naively auto configure' ?

>9. Reads and writes must utilize the same name-space.
>
>10. Devices must save and export their complete configuration by
>default.
>
>11. Devices must support a configuration display mode which makes
>all assumed and default values visible.


Are 10 and 11 the same requirement, that all assumed and default values 
should be visible ?


>12. Devices must support both line-by-line and bulk commit, with
>syntax checking and rollback either line-by-line or bulk, as
>appropriate to the mode.
>
>13. Devices should support a ?syntax check only? mode, bulk or
>line-by-line, which only reports errors and does not actually apply
>changes to the configuration.
>
>14. Simple versioned numeric result codes should precede human-readable
>output wherever useful and appropriate.
>
>15. Devices should immediately log the source and details of access
>attempts, configuration changes, and operator-initiated state
>changes to one or more external devices.
>
>16. Operators must be able to create configuration snippet templates
>and apply them individually or as new defaults, overriding vendor
>defaults.
>
>17. Operators must be able to apply configuration snippets to ranges
>or lists of instances, not just one-by-one.
>
>18. In-band authentication methods like RADIUS and Kerberos must
>be backed up with locally-stored passwords for disconnected use.
>
>19. Devices must support user and role accounts at multiple
>permissions levels with different read/write privileges.
>
>20. Divergence between human and machine interfaces:
>     As late as possible
>     Tabular versus pair-value
>     When output can't be parsed w/o reference to previous line?
>     Necessary at all?
>
>So to start off, let's hear if you think any of these _don't_ belong
>in the draft.
>
>Cheers,
>         Steve