Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANGmodules

----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Claise" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:39 AM
> Dear all,
>
> We occasionally see read-write MIB module proposals within the IETF.
> However, the write capabilities of those MIB modules are rarely
implemented.
>
> While discussing this issue with the MIB doctors, we arrive to the
> conclusion that it's now time to set the direction for future MIB
> developments within the IETF. Basically, let's not specify read-write
> MIB modules unless we have a good reason. Read-only MIB modules are
> still fine though, as SNMP is clearly used for monitoring purposes.
>
> Here is the statement we came up with:
>
>     The OPS area recommends the use of NETCONF/YANG standards for
>     configuration. IETF working groups are therefore encouraged to use
>     the NETCONF/YANG standards for configuration, specifically in new
>     charters. SNMP MIB modules modifying persistent configuration
state
>     should only be produced by working groups in cases of clear
utility
>     and consensus to use SNMP write operations for configuration.
>
> Ideally, this should become an IESG statement.
> Your feedback is most welcome.

You probably know that there is currently a consensus call in progress
over

"Please indicate Support or Oppose for this MIB
(draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib) to be read-only."

and I was pleasantly surprised to see opposition, albeit with one
opponent later changing their mind (perhaps they were sat on from a
height:-).  I don't see much sign of Netxxxx in the mpls arena but there
is a need there for configuration, since there need not be a control
plane to set things up.  Perhaps writable MIB modules will still be with
us in the distant future in some corners of the Internet..

Ideally, this idea would be fleshed out in an I-D.

Tom Petch

> Regards, the MIB doctors & Benoit