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

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

Juergen,

Text proposals are always welcome. The text needs however include IMO
not only information about 'why data models are not organized around
FCAPS in the IETF' but also 'text that puts our data models into FCAPS
in some level of detail'. Some 'text that is much shorter and remains at
a rather abstract level' could work, so, please, send your proposals. 

Regards,

Dan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:42 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] network management data models - a rewrite
> 
> 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/>