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

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

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.

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:19 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [OPSAWG] network management data models - a rewrite
> 
> Hi,
> 
> draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-02 has a section on "Network
> Management Data Models" which is structured around FCAPS which I
happen
> to dislike for several reasons (data model work in the IETF is not
> organized around FCAPS, the discussion is constantly changing
> abstraction levels, some of the examples picked are somewhat
> surprising). To be constructive, I have written a replacement for this
> section that I think better summarizes what the IETF has to offer and
> how data modeling work happens to be done in the IETF. In addition, it
> is also shorter.
> 
> I do not mind if my proposed rewrite is followed by a section
> discussing how all this fits into an FCAPS view of the world but such
a
> section should be much shorter and different from what is in the
> current section 4. (For me, a short explanation that the IETF does not
> organize data models around FCAPS is really sufficient but I guess
> Mehmet and Benoit might not agree with that.)
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>