Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANGmodules

Hi Tom,

As the MIB Dr. on this draft,  I have responded on the MIB Dr. thread that I
do NOT see a way to make this draft (draft-ietf-mpls-tp-te-mib) read-only.
This draft contains extension tables for tables in LSR and TE MIBS which are
created by RowStatus (which is read-create).   Like it or not, RowStatus of
those MIBs (i.e. LSR and TE MIBs) effect the rows in the extension tables of
this draft (think the case of row creation or row deletion).   That is an
SNMP Set operation which effects the draft.

I believe the statement that Benoit puts forth would allow for such a
situation as this draft, specifically:

"... 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."

Perhaps, additional wording, such as "For example, in the case of proposed
SNMP MIB modules which extend or augment rows that are created by
configuration in a SNMP MIB module which is already a RFC, the proposed SNNP
MIB modules will be grandfathered, if the working group finds consensus to
do so."

However, I am okay with the statement as written.

Thanks,
  -Joan 


-----Original Message-----
From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of t.petch
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:02 AM
To: Benoit Claise; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] 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

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


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3705/7092 - Release Date: 02/14/14