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

+1

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bert
> Wijnen (IETF)
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:09 PM
> To: Simon Leinen; Benoit Claise; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area