Re: [netmod] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bjorklund-netmod-snmp-cfg-00

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On 10/21/2010 09:29 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
...
>
> [on a side note: I sure get a lot of questions from people about
> configuring SNMP using SNMP; if no one is doing it, why am I getting
> questions?]
>

Ummm, because SNMP is so hard to use for configuration?
Because these particular MIB modules are complicated and non-intuitive?

I can't commit to working on the details on this module,
but I don't mind if it is published.  I agree with Juergen
that having specific modules published in RFCs is forward progress.
This also shows how much more powerful YANG is than SMIv2, which is important.

My concern is that we pull in lots of SNMP baggage by requiring
that new YANG modules be compatible with all existing modules,
which will include this one.  Establishing precedent is extremely
important, and requires attention and resources.  Wasting it
on unimportant content amounts to mis-management.

It turns out that what modules to standardize and in what order
is rather important.  IMO, interface naming has to be first.
Almost every YANG module, including 1 in progress in the IPFIX WG,
needs to refer to interface instances.



Andy