[OPS-AREA] OPSAREA strategy [was: Re: OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the Hiroshima sessionuploaded]

[Balazs Lengyel <[e-mail]>]

Hello,
I agree that we need this debate. actually we have had a very similar 
debate internally within my company.

As I see it we are already live in a multi-protocol OAM world, that has 
been decided by the market.
IMHO there should be a set of recommended protocols that any WG/protocol 
developer in IETF should use for configuration/logging/performance 
management/ fault management.
All draft authors should have a good reason if they want to use 
something else.
An interesting point would be addressing/naming. As I see it 
configuration is heading for Netconf while fault management is using 
SNMP. These have very different naming systems.
I have the basic use case:  I get an alarm/trap about some resource in 
my node. I want to check the configuration/status of the resource, 
however I can't just copy the SNMP OID into a get/subtree-filter of a 
Netconf message. So what is the recommended way?

I fully agree with Andy, that to make YANG/NETCONF work we will need 
some basic stuff, like MIB2 system branch, interface tables, else? This 
would be work for the OPS area.

Balazs



On 12/03/09 00:12, Andy Bierman wrote:
> David Harrington wrote:
> ...
>    
>> I don't think IESG commitment is that important. I think market
>> commitment is important. I think addressing real market needs is
>> important. I think we need to start the discussion to understand what
>> the emerging needs are so we can begin to address them.
>>
>>      
> Why would the market gravitate towards a standard
> that is just standard operations on proprietary
> data models?
>
> That is what I meant by a 5 year plan.
> Is there going to be any standard data models
> (like ipfix-psamp.yang) actually deployed?
> If so, is there some coherence to the collective
> set of YANG modules published by the IETF?
>
> If a domain-specific WG like IPFIX WG needs common
> data modeling components (like an interfaces table),
> then are they going to wait for that work, do it themselves,
> invent some interim hack, or what?
>
> Isn't it up to the IESG to make sure the protocols they
> approve have some development plan, or at least a stated direction
> wrt/ protocol work being deployed over a long period of time?
>
> The market is already using SNMP and NETCONF for
> proprietary data models.  Nobody needs YANG for that.
> Now that the IETF is developing YANG, there is some
> expectation that the IETF will do something with it.
>
>    
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>        
>    
>>>> David Harrington
>>>>          
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>    

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: [phone]
Tel: [phone]                  email: [e-mail]