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

Hi,

I think this recommendation should just say that it applies only
to SNMP for configuration.  I don't want it to say "SHOULD use
NETCONF for configuration and (MUST/SHOULD) use SNMP
for monitoring."

In NETMOD WG, we started down this path for interfaces
and some vendors said "give us the counters in NETCONF.
We have no plans to implement SNMP in our device for anything."

I think NETCONF and IPFIX are good monitoring candidates,
better than SNMP by some metrics, and worse by other metrics.
A WG should weigh all factors and make the best choice for their
situation.  A 1-size-fits-all policy is not that helpful here.


Andy



On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 12:05 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> I agree with Dave.  Even though it may already be implied, the statement
> should explicitly state that read-only MIB modules can be produced for
> monitoring.
> - Andy
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"ietfdbh" <[email protected]>
> *To: *"Benoit Claise" <[email protected]>
> *Cc: *[email protected]
> *Sent: *Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:35:59 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [OPS-AREA] configuration: writable MIB modules versus
> NETCONF/YANG        modules
>
> 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
>
>

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