RE: RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement forconfigurationby SNMP

Hi Randy,

I think we need to prepare other WGs to move to a multi-protocol
Management Framework, but we do not yet have a standardized
multi-protocol solution for them to move to. Until we have a data
model for netconf (presuming netconf will be the second NM protocol
supported), we should still stress the importance of making IETF
technologies manageable with standardized NM solutions. 

That means we still need to stress the importance of providing a data
model in our only existng standard data modeling language, SMIv2,
until a new data modeling language becomes available.

Between now and then we should ask the managed-technology WGs to
develop a MIB module for management now, and request a corresponding
information model that can be used to develop a netconf data model
later.

AND between now and then, the management protocol development
community needs to figure out how to make the two protocols
compatible, so we do not have two standard protocols that cannot share
information.

David Harrington
[email protected] 
[email protected]
[email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:03 AM
> To: 'MIB Doctors'; [email protected]
> Cc: 'Mark Townsley'
> Subject: Re: [OPS-NM] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement 
> forconfigurationby SNMP 
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
> > To: "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <[email protected]>; "'MIB 
> Doctors'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "'Mark Townsley'" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:34 AM
> > Subject: [OPS-NM] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] Mandatory Requirement 
> for configurationby SNMP 
> ...
> > Since possible alternatives are on the horizon, and the IETF
> > management framework has always permitted the support for 
> alternative
> > protocols for carrying MIB module data, I suggest that any 
> long-lived
> > requirements section RECOMMEND, but not REQUIRE, SNMP so that
> > alternative protocols could be used in the future to meet these
> > management functionality requirements.
> > 
> > However, I believe that MIB modules and support for SNMP should
> > continue to be required as a condition of IETF standards-track
> > advancement until suitable alternative solutions are completed and
> > available.
> ...
> 
> I'm having trouble fitting these two paragraphs together.
> The first is consistent with the changes suggested, but
> the second is a strong argument against making those
> changes.
> 
> Randy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
> 



_______________________________________________
OPS-NM mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm