Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

Many thx for the great suggestion !

However perhaps you are much more knowledgeable in that area and could 
recommend which model fit the best the requirement to standardize 
configuration of any new protocol or protocol extension at least in the 
space of routing and routing protocols or services being based on them ?

As you know the current IRS framework driven by junisco is trying to 
come with common API to the routing system agreed across vendors. This 
is great as attempts never happened in the past.

But if we are at this phase I think creating a network elements 
abstraction layer and be able to configure/monitor any protocol and 
service at the unified way is one of the building blocks we should start 
with. And of course I think this is very clear to everyone if it is not 
made mandatory in each draft as new section or appendix it is just not 
going to happen in practice.

Best regards,
R.

> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:22:10AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>
>> Aha .. so you are saying that MIBs are not mandatory .... Very
>> interesting. So I guess SSH to the routers and box by box cli
>> provisioning is here to stay for a while I think :(
>>
>
> Robert,
>
> you may want to take a closer look at the data models currently being
> defined in the NETMOD working group. Please review them and send any
> comments.
>
> /js
>