IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [NGO] external module properties

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Tue, 29 April 2008 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ngo-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ngo-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ngo-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02783A6DE7; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ngo@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7803A6DDF for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cb9rwSQoQ0ER for <ngo@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.80]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601163A6C2B for <ngo@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.27]) by QMTA08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KTSD1Z0040bG4ec5801o00; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:35:28 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA03.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KTbS1Z00A4HwxpC3P00000; Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:35:28 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=xLSTjzbjIEsW7IXlPLIA:9 a=YgoWkjvGGw94u6DoS8EA:7 a=hATWtylEEL3YEuGVDGnhJ1VrOqMA:4 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=gJcimI5xSWUA:10
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: 'Andy Bierman' <ietf@andybierman.com>, 'Wes Hardaker' <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
References: <48137444.6070802@andybierman.com> <sdr6cq83d2.fsf@wes.hardakers.net><4815EA5E.60607@andybierman.com> <sdprs8vh0f.fsf@wes.hardakers.net> <48173E9B.5000404@andybierman.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:35:26 -0400
Message-ID: <008901c8aa0e$a6bc4700$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <48173E9B.5000404@andybierman.com>
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AciqDbNUKB9zsAtyTJKX6GChN3TBNwAAG0Hg
Cc: 'NETCONF Goes On' <ngo@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [NGO] external module properties
X-BeenThere: ngo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF Goes On - discussions on future work and extensions to NETCONF <ngo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ngo>
List-Post: <mailto:ngo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo>, <mailto:ngo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ngo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ngo-bounces@ietf.org

 

> We already have a single naming scope for module names.
> There is no concept at all in YANG of the Acme FOO-MIB
> and some other FOO-MIB.  There is just one FOO-MIB,
> and any import (or include) which identifies FOO-MIB
> in the target is referring to the one and only possible
> module (within that implementation) called FOO-MIB.

This works within an implementation. How does it work in an NMS that
deals with FOO-MIB instances in different implementations? If both
Ciso and Nortel publish a FOO-MIB, how does an NMS managing both
vendors' devices differentiate which FOO-MIB specification to use for
each managed node, especially if the BAR-MIB imports "FOO-MIB"?

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
ietfdbh@comcast.net
dharrington@huawei.com

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email