[Nemops-interest] Re: [Nemops-workshop-attendees] NEMOPS Workshop Report

[Wes Hardaker <[e-mail]>]

>
>
>
> I think there are four items here, summarized as:
>
> a) NETCONF has some successful deployments.
> b) Many operators (all, really) manage some devices that don't support
> NETCONF.
> c) More acceptance of NETCONF will help.
> d) RESTCONF is seen by some as helpful also.
>
> It might help to pull them into separate paragraphs with more details,
> since each claim stands on its own, and none were universal.
>

Hi Phil.  Thanks for the suggestions.  Note that we were trying to document
the thinking in the room around what conclusions were actually not fully
agreed to (and not necessarily a particular direction that individual
members think were the hopeful "fix" to the discussion).

So I think the real problem is that b) is actually there to back up a).
And c) and d) are really a hopeful direction but not everyone there thought
it was a path that would definitely work, (though I think the majority
probably did).

So how about this replacement instead:

   1.  Some, but not all, saw NETCONF for configuration as being
       successful in some larger-scale deployments.  Although this
       statement is true in some contexts, many operators indicated
       their need to rely on other forms of access to manage their
       networks such as CLIs, expect scripts, and other protocols.

   2.  Many hope that NETCONF, and RESTCONF more specifically, will
       continue to move to a long-term configuration management
       solution.  However, some participants doubted whether the
       protocol and its data models can ever be truly ubiquitous and
       keep pace with the device deployment pace.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI