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

On 20/02/2014 16:15, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> A little late to this discussion, but...
>
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>> As a chair of WGs outside the OPS area, I'd still like to see
>>> additional guidance around notification/logging mechanisms as well
>>> (IPFIX vs Syslog vs SNMP traps/informs, etc.)
>> This is much harder. Here is how I see things:
>>
>> IPFIX works well for large amounts of notification/logging data that
>> has a common structure, i.e. you get things reported with a few IPFIX
>> templates. SYSLOG works well with semi-structured data - traditionally
>> there was very little common structure and the value was in the
>> free-form text field. SNMP again works with structured data that is
>> defined in data models (which is different from many IPFIX templates
>> that IPFIX data processors are expected to discover at runtime,
>> although I am aware of I-Ds trying to nail down IPFIX templates).
> I've been saying for a while that a straight recommendation for "use X
> for Y" isn't helpful.  Each of us typically thinks in certain realms,
> and by far the IETF considers high-end routers as the core case for most
> of their decisions.  But the reality is that the protocols we develop
> are used in many many types of devices from embedded systems to high-end
> routers to satellites to packet radios to...  And saying uniformly that
> "X is best for your Y usage" is simply not the truth.  We've already had
> 3 sub-threads that have started in this discussion about "um, but is
> that true for this particular case?".
>
> I've argued (not enough) for a summary table in the past that compared
> and contrasted.  What are the strengths of each protocol?  What are the
> weaknesses?
The tables at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6632#appendix-A was a first 
attempt.
Not complete for sure.

Regards, Benoit
> Juergen's last paragraph above is a great start down that road.
> Uniformity in a certain class of problems is definitely good.  We don't
> want any device to have to implement SNMP, Netconf, IPFIX and Syslog
> because 4 working groups chose different tools.  But it may be best for
> energy management type devices, which are highly constrained, to choose
> one solution while routers to choose another (and in fact, I'd argue
> there is no such thing any more as a "small" router).
>