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

Hi -

> From: "David B Harrington" <[email protected]>
> To: "'Randy Presuhn'" <[email protected]>; "'MIB Doctors'" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Cc: "'Mark Townsley'" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:14 PM
> Subject: RE: [OPS-NM] 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.
...

These are all strong arguments for retaining the current MUSTs.
I'm even more puzzled by the suggestion to replace them with
SHOULDs.

Randy


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