Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANG modules

A

> On Feb 15, 2014, at 11:35 AM, "ietfdbh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Benoit,
>  
> I think the statement fails to provide advice about whether WGs should produce read-only MIB modules for monitoring.
> Your intro to the statement says it’s still fine, but the statement itself does not.
>  
> David Harrington
> [email protected]
> +1-603-828-1401
> From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:40 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [OPS-AREA] configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANG modules
>  
> 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.
> 
> Regards, the MIB doctors & Benoit
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

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