RE: [NGO] Proposed Re-charting of NETCONF WG (was NEE)

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Sharon,

I would suggest that you try to draw the line and issue a new version of
the re-charter proposal which I would like to discuss in the IESG
telechat on 10/18. If it passes the IESG it will be sent for review to
the whole IETF. We can expect more comments and need to do more changes
following these discussions. 

My opinion is that we need to focus on the protocol extensions working
on the assumptions that a data modeling language effort will start
happening in parallel if the YANG BOF will be successful. Data models
definition and examples as needed should be in the meantime included in
the I-Ds same as we have done until now. 

I prefer to minimize the number of work items. Personally I am not
convinced that NETCONF monitoring is a high priority item, but take this
as a contributor opinion. On the other hand I think that NETCONF over
TLS has gathered enough support and is in line with the current work.  

Also, please include the notifications related text and milestones that
need to be completed in the re-chartering proposal, so that we can start
to operate with one charter at a time. 

The sooner you can send this proposal the better, to be able to catch
the 10/18 slot in the IESG. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan


 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sharon Chisholm [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:46 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [NGO] Proposed Re-charting of NETCONF WG (was NEE)
> 
> Hi
> 
> We agreed in an offline call that even though we are likely 
> looking to re-charter the existing NETCONF working group to 
> take care of the work initially proposed in the NEE BOF, that 
> we would use the NGO mailing list to for initial discussion 
> so as not to clutter up the netconf mailing list while they 
> are trying to finish up the notification work.
> 
> Below is the current re-charter proposal. There are a couple 
> of items currently included in the future work items that I 
> know there is some support for. It would be good for people 
> to re-iterate their support for those items to get a good 
> sense of whether they should be pulled forward.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sharon
> 
> 
> ---------------
> 
> A second phase of incremental development of NETCONF will 
> include the following items: 
> 
> 1. Fine-grain locking: The base NETCONF protocol only 
> provides a lock for the entire configuration datastore, which 
> is not deemed to meet important operational and security 
> requirements.  The NETCONF working group will produce a 
> standards-track RFC specifying a mechanism for fine-grain 
> locking of the NETCONF configuration datastore.
> 
> (The initial draft will be based on
> draft-lengyel-ngo-partial-lock-00.txt barring additional 
> contributions from the community.)
> 
> 2. Netconf monitoring: It is considered best practice for 
> IETF working groups to include management of their protocols 
> within the scope of the solution they are providing. NETCONF 
> does not provide this capability.
> The NETCONF working group will produce a standards-track RFC 
> with mechanisms allowing NETCONF itself to be used to monitor 
> some aspects of NETCONF operation.
> 
> (The initial draft will be based on
> draft-chisholm-netconf-monitoring-00.txt barring additional 
> contributions from the community.)
> 
> 3. Schema advertisement: Currently the NETCONF protocol is 
> able to advertise which protocol features are supported on a 
> particular NETCONF-capable device. However, there is 
> currently no way to discover which XML Schema are supported 
> on the device. The NETCONF working group will produce a 
> standards-track RFC with mechanisms making this discovery possible.
> 
> This item may be merged with "Netconf monitoring" into a 
> single document.
> 
> (The initial draft will be based on
> draft-scott-netconf-schema-query-00.txt barring additional 
> contributions from the community.)
> 
> 
> The following are currently not considered in scope for 
> re-chartering at this time, but may be candidates for work 
> when there is community consensus to take them on.
> 
>    o  NETCONF over TLS
>    o  Access Control requirements
>    o  General improvements to the base protocol
>    o  Netconf access to SMI-based MIB data
>    o  The Bill Fenner problem:  Address real or perceived 
> issue that "giving SSH for netconf gives full SSH access to the box" 
> 
> 
> Goals and Milestones
> 
> (October should be read "When the WG is re-charted")
> 
> December 2007    -00 draft for Netconf Monitoring
> December 2007    -00 draft for Schema Advertisement
> December 2007    -00 draft for Fine Grain Locking
> May 2008        WG Last Call on three documents
> August 2008     - WG Last Call on Netconf Monitoring after IETF72 
> August 2008     - WG Last Call on Schema Advertisement after IETF72 
> August 2008     - WG Last Call on Fine Grain Locking after IETF72 
> October 2008    Send three documents to the IESG
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
> 


_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo