IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Fri, 03 August 2012 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8AF21F8E57; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLNBRRvOissx; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.63]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A9D21F8E54; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:18:40 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=ehI2/7sAO48DEMr7AsdlCx+SWeFXZfdBkcDtBh0HerkfURte7xXbZzV5Q/el5WyJ; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [76.254.55.169] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1SxKaG-0002vX-FK; Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:18:40 -0400
Message-ID: <006601cd7194$6681e620$6b01a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: opsawg@ietf.org
References: <20120802055556.1356.17133.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><CALaySJK6RE1pnk0RJZjpU8jHb9KKb3zOjGc5NqTcVyb7kTBOyw@mail.gmail.com><CAL0qLwZaoVDtt_8o1Qr5NqG-rBk6jkAMMVT+jUUoiD2rhEvmuw@mail.gmail.com><501AA9DF.6010208@raszuk.net><EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0407E24713@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <CABCOCHQwi7-Bi8itu5fZDpmEZDAufXwpS=zx68Xyq1xLzwOLng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:24:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888b7f3a87d4e9c50f11d75e9d171ba3468f40dcd775cc11f38350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 76.254.55.169
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:18:41 -0000

Hi -

> From: "Andy Bierman" <andy@yumaworks.com>
> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
> Cc: <opsawg@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
...
> NMS developers need to spend too many resources on translating
> naming and other data-modeling specific details so they can be
> usable within the application.  So if 1 data modeling language
> is not used, then deterministic, loss-less, round-trip translation
> between data modeling languages is needed.  Multiple
> protocols are not the problem -- incompatible data from multiple
> protocols is the problem.
...

Picking a single language or set of round-trip translatable languages
also isn't enough.  Its a fact of life that vendors will produce
models and implementations that are slightly, or even radically different.
The differences aren't necessarily even intentional, but nonetheless
introduce the need to talk about "similar" models and "operationally
equivalent" configurations, where the transformations needed to go
from what will do the job on one piece of equipment to what will
work on another may be substantial.  (From an implementation perspective
it might be better to think in terms of transformations necessary to go
from a common model of desired operational characteristics to the
dial tweaks and button pokes necessary to get a device to do the right
thing.)  Since great minds often think alike, even in the absence
of standards, there is not necessarily a formal "derived from" or
"subclass" or "common aspect" relationship between the definitions.
This may be an obvious use case for XSLT, but as far as I know nothing
has been done about *standardizing* such usage, other than discussions at the
IAB workshop oh-so-many years ago, and some ISO/ITU discussions in
the 1990s about eventual applications of the General Relationship
Model and the management domain/policy stuff in GDMO land.

Randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email