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