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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:54 AM
> To: Simon Leinen
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] configuration: writable MIB modules versus
> NETCONF/YANG modules
> 
> 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

It may be a feature to the OPS area, but it is not a feature as far as the audience
of the statement is concerned (I speak as one of the latter, and one who's asked
for a statement about notifications).

It sounds like the silence is due to lack of any consensus or simple answer.
The lack of a simple consensus answer is a problem, not a feature.
But that's the current world we live in.

-Dave