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

Agree

Bert

On 17/02/14 10:54, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:39:26AM +0100, Simon Leinen wrote:
>> Benoit Claise writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Agree - it's time for such a statement, and this is a good one.
>> It doesn't make any recommendations about monitoring or notifications.
>> I think that (absence) is also appropriate at this point.
>
> I agree that it is a feature to be silent about things this statement
> is not talking about.
>
> /js
>