RE: [nmrg] Re: Comments Question about draft-xu-cops-push-00.txt

If the goal is to use XML, then why reinvent the wheel on webservices
for management outside of the W3C and DMTF?=20
SNMP, COPS, DIAMETER, NETCONF... Where does it end?

Is there an RFC that does a thorough analysis of the alternatives
(IETF's and other standards bodies' included) in terms of capabilities,
latency, bandwidth, complexity, backward compatibility and other such
quantitative metrics? If not, this might be a helpful activity as the
mailing list discussions quickly become crystal ball gazing and
philosophical in nature. Then folks can figure out if their requirements
make a better fit for one protocol over another.=20

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:47 AM
> To: xuheyuan
> Cc: Tina Tsou; [email protected]; [email protected]; Romascanu,
Dan
> (Dan); Hexian Huang; Tom-PT Taylor; [email protected]; ops-
> [email protected]
> Subject: [nmrg] Re: Comments Question about draft-xu-cops-push-00.txt
>=20
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:19:18PM +0800, xuheyuan wrote:
>=20
> > At that time the Re reference point, merged into Rw reference point
> > later, controlled the IP edge, actually an IP-IP gateway. In the
> > current network, most existing IP-IP gateways are routers, which
> > support COPS already. In reality, using COPS is the quickest way to
> > do that as described in approach 2 in this draft.
>=20
> I have routers that support NETCONF in my lab and no routers
> supporting COPS-PR or COPS.  Perhaps this is why our views of the
> world are somewhat different.
>=20
> > COPS-PR by nature does policy control, Rw interface mainly does
> > policy control dynamically, not just push configuration
> > information. Besides, in 2005,NETCONF was a pretty new protocol, and
> > few existing routers supported NETCONF.
>=20
> I never understood the distinction between configuration and policy
> information when it comes to the device interface. The PDP is the
> policy engine and what comes out of this engine as provisioning
> information is for me not really distinct from configuration data
> coming out of other systems (e.g. customer provisioning systems).
>=20
> I agree that NETCONF was pretty new in 2005 and it still is in 2007.
> COPS-PR is older but as far as I can tell not too widely implemented
> and the number of people within the IETF who do understand COPS-PR
> well is like to be somewhat smaller than the number of people within
> the IETF who understand NETCONF and my impression was that COPS-PR
> awareness declines.
>=20
> > As RACF supports both fix and mobile, push and pull modes, in the
> > real networking, PD-FE may possibly support both modes, and in pull
> > modes, COPS is very effective, so, in push mode, if approach 2 COPS
> > could be adopted, it will simplify the implementation.
>=20
> The implementation simplification is a relative thing (if you have
> COPS, using COPS is simple, if you have NETCONF, using NETCONF is
> simple). Not sure how to make a decision on this.
>=20
> Again, I like to see the discussion raised to the technical level to
> first understand if NETCONF could do what you need it to do equally
> well or whether there is any technical feature that really
> distinguishes COPS-PR from NETCONF.
>=20
> /js
>=20
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		 Jacobs University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	 P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen,
> Germany
> --
> !! This message is brought to you via the `nmrg' mailing list.
> !! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To unsubscribe
or
> adjust
> !! your settings, send a mail message to
<[email protected]>
> !! or look at https://mail.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/mailman/listinfo/nmrg.

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