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

Hi,

Note that none of the people asking for more text have provided any
proposed changes.

   WGs should use the monitoring protocol(s) that best fit their
requirements.

How's that?

Not sure it is worth the effort to create a cookbook
for all possible requirements that could occur, or
try to give meaningful guidance in 1 or 2 sentences.


Andy

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 3:40 PM, ietfdbh <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't think remaining silent is a feature, when WGs have asked for
> guidance.
>
> David Harrington
> [email protected]
> +1-603-828-1401
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave
> > Thaler
> > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 2:23 PM
> > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Simon Leinen
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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