Re: [OPSAWG] network management data models - a rewrite

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 07:05:15AM +0100, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> It's not only Mehmet and Benoit, it's also me (as contributor and AD),
> and at least one position expressed in the meeting and also the silent
> majority in the WG meeting (to be confirmed on the list) that agree with
> us or do not care. You missed I think that part of the OPSAWG meeting,
> but what was said and agreed I think (pending on list confirmation) is
> that the goal of the document or one of its principal goals is to
> provide a view of the IETF data models for NM for external SDOs. Many of
> those look at management apps via a FCAPS view, and providing both views
> is equally important. This is the reason for which while agreeing with
> your view that we must emphasize the way data modeling happens in the
> IETF and explain it, I believe that keeping a minimal but meaningful
> level of presentation of the models through the FCAPS perspective is
> necessary for the participants out of the IETF.

The text there currently is in my view not suitable to say it
politely. If needed, I can also write a short text explaining why data
models are not organized around FCAPS in the IETF. (There is already
text like that.) If people want text that puts our data models into
FCAPS in some level of detail, you will either produce boring
repetition (as most of our MIB modules do support P and F equally
well) or you have to have text that is much shorter and remains at a
rather abstract level, i.e. data link data models usually support P
and F.

I am not strictly against having some FCAPS discussion in the document
but the text we currently have is IMHO not suitable.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>