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

[David Harrington <[e-mail]>]

+1

--
David Harrington
[e-mail]
[phone]





On 8/2/12 12:59 PM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>Regards,
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of
>> Robert Raszuk
>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> 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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg