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

Yes. The question is whether a basic information model written in XML can be a useful starting point (trying to interpret the proposal made by Robert). 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:14 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: robert@raszuk.net; opsawg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
> 
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> <dromasca@avaya.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the
> > agenda concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new
> > architecture for management protocols.
> >
> >
> > My personal take is that no one protocol, or one data modeling
> > language can match the operational requirements to configure and
> > manage the wide and wider range of hosts, routers and other network
> > devices that are used to implement IP networks and protocols. We
> > should be talking nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that
> > fits all. However, this is a discussion that just starts.
> 
> 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.
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> 
> Andy
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> > Of
> >> Robert Raszuk
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
> >> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Basic ietf process question ...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > OPSAWG@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg