[Teas] SNMP and network slicing

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 23 May 2021 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464C53A1DC5 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 May 2021 09:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=0.846, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GLd-RPxFPzW4 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 May 2021 09:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBE5E3A1DC3 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 May 2021 09:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 14NG2XDL032695 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 May 2021 17:02:33 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A114604B for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 May 2021 17:02:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C56A4604A for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 May 2021 17:02:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 May 2021 17:02:33 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (65.151.51.84.dyn.plus.net [84.51.151.65] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 14NG2WTo015419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 May 2021 17:02:32 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'TEAS WG'" <teas@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 17:02:32 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <006101d74fed$0a4c8770$1ee59650$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AddP6/38vWJL6wZ8QPmDmJ9l9MNiyA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.51.151.65
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.0.1017-26176.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.679-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.679-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.1017-26176.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.679500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 1PkSldqpCpoaf3p8Lo2lejjNGpWCIvfTC//1TMV5chMG2HMvWEJensV3 W1Ra+VqXALobQNAKEPdaosFST81rSyL7Bm+H3XuysZ+w1yADIC1HANTrr3brvHdiYU4RNQy5MH1 xx17eFtQ35QSUKIAMBhbpNRRz/Pl6eYBeIKYu4Hnece0aRiX9WvXuWpt5ue19nG0dBE+DEE1yoN 2QiJtl0a40MjvsDp9wcMTn8I9bkDu2Kkcom9iYSJcL/e/IPG3cCCdq6k3LmHbKY//WmIj/oWoYt /6rN40qpsX84hgxtpoBEJ87d3zbChg8yTDj9wqcxi///JpaHQNK4f4Z+CZAZ45JUK9UdYknqPBm IQgMvkimxfziGDG2mu+zkoobd8qBj2hRzH1UwuA5f9Xw/xqKXSs3zPQeiEbe+gtHj7OwNO31Kzk 40dEY9b+x0CwodZDRBb8ULUDH7OYSNn6J/P+eFpMKHKlUnh2n
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/_LjEkQmYG2c6DtDdPAcNeUjSe2s>
Subject: [Teas] SNMP and network slicing
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 16:02:41 -0000

Hi,

Kenichi pointed out that the current version of the slicing draft has a
couple of mentions of SNMP and that this might no longer be appropriate
given the IESG statement at
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/writable-mib-module/ 

I agree.

I propose to remove all mention of SNMP from Section 5.2 unless anyone
objects.

The text that will change is:

OLD
   There are several IETF-defined mechanisms for expressing the need for
   a desired logical network.  The NBI carries data either in a
   protocol-defined format, or in a formalism associated with a modeling
   language.

   For instance:

   o  Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
      [RFC5440] and GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI) using RSVP-TE
      [RFC4208] use a TLV-based binary encoding to transmit data.

   o  Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF
      Protocol [RFC8040] use XML abnd JSON encoding.

   o  gRPC/GNMI [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] uses a binary encoded
      programmable interface;

   o  SNMP ([RFC3417], [RFC3412] and [RFC3414] uses binary encoding
      (ASN.1).

   o  For data modeling, YANG ([RFC6020] and [RFC7950]) may be used to
      model configuration and other data for NETCONF, RESTCONF, and GNMI
      - among others; ProtoBufs can be used to model gRPC and GNMI data;
      Structure of Management Information (SMI) [RFC2578] may be used to
      define Management Information Base (MIB) modules for SNMP, using
      an adapted subset of OSI's Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1,
      1988).
NEW
   There are several IETF-defined mechanisms for expressing the need for
   a desired logical network.  The NBI carries data either in a
   protocol-defined format, or in a formalism associated with a modeling
   language.

   For instance:

   o  Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
      [RFC5440] and GMPLS User-Network Interface (UNI) using RSVP-TE
      [RFC4208] use a TLV-based binary encoding to transmit data.

   o  Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF
      Protocol [RFC8040] use XML and JSON encoding.

   o  gRPC/GNMI [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] uses a binary encoded
      programmable interface;

   o  For data modeling, YANG ([RFC6020] and [RFC7950]) may be used to
      model configuration and other data for NETCONF, RESTCONF, and GNMI
      - among others; ProtoBufs can be used to model gRPC and GNMI data.
END

Thanks,
Adrian