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

Dear all,

As pointed by Simon, Jürgen, Dan, Bert, Joan, yes, it was a feature not 
to speak about monitoring in this statement. If we do, then why not 
Fault, Accounting, Performance?
If we take on the task to specify all FCAP aspects, this will be too big 
of a job for an IESG statement. However, as I mentioned multiple times, 
I'll work on this ... I have 2 years (to try) to achieve that. I foresee 
a lot of discussions.

So, I would prefer to keep this statement purely for configuration.

Regards, Benoit.
> 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] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     I don't think remaining silent is a feature, when WGs have asked for
>     guidance.
>
>     David Harrington
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     +1-603-828-1401
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Dave
>     > Thaler
>     > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 2:23 PM
>     > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Simon Leinen
>     > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] configuration: writable MIB modules versus
>     > NETCONF/YANG modules
>     >
>     > > -----Original Message-----
>     > > From: OPS-AREA [mailto:[email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Juergen
>     > > Schoenwaelder
>     > > Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 1:54 AM
>     > > To: Simon Leinen
>     > > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OPS-AREA mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[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