Re: Basic ietf process question ...

[Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>]

	I am discussing this very topic in the Ops meeting today at 3. Please come by to discuss.

	--Tom


On Aug 2, 2012:9:25 AM, at 9:25 AM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> All,
> 
> IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions, Security Considerations, Refs, etc ...
> 
> Does anyone have a good reason why any new protocol definition or enhancement does not have a build in mandatory "XML schema" section which would allow to actually use such standards based enhancement in vendor agnostic way ?
> 
> There is a lot of talk about reinventing APIs, building network wide OS platform, delivering SDNs (whatever it means at any point of time for one) ... but how about we start with something very basic yet IMHO necessary to slowly begin thinking of network as one plane.
> 
> I understand that historically we had/still have SNMP however I have never seen this being mandatory section of any standards track document. Usually SNMP comes 5 years behind (if at all) making it obsolete by design.
> 
> NETCONF is great and very flexible communication channel for provisioning. However it is sufficient to just look at number of ops lists to see that those who tried to use it quickly abandoned their efforts due to complete lack of XML schema from each vendor they happen to use or complete mismatch of vendor to vendor XML interpretation.
> 
> And while perhaps this is obvious I do not think that any new single effort will address this. This has to be an atomic and integral part of each WG's document.
> 
> Looking forward for insightful comments ...
> 
> Best,
> R.
> 
> 
>