Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANG modules - part 2

----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Claise" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 12:06 PM
Subject: [OPS-AREA] configuration: writable MIB modules versus

> Dear all,
>
> [I bcc'ed some people, with whom I discussed this issue privately. I
> want to make sure they're in the opsarea loop. Sorry, if you receive
> this email twice]
>
> I discussed the following statement with the IESG. I ideally wanted to
> have this statement approved as an IESG statement before the beginning
> of the week, but I realize that it might need some more discussion
among
> the OPS community...
>
>     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, especially in new
>     charters. SNMP MIB modules _creating and_ 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.
>
> Btw, one IESG member insisted on having "_creating and_ modifying"
> instead of "modifying".
>
> Let me focus on a more important issue.
> First let me make sure that we agree on one terminology. The
> NETCONF/YANG terminology is in RFC 6244:
>
>    o  Configuration data is the set of writable data that is required
to
>        transform a system from its initial default state into its
current
>        state [RFC4741  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4741>].
>
>     o  Operational state data is a set of data that has been obtained
by
>        the system at runtime and influences the system's behavior
similar
>        to configuration data.  In contrast to configuration data,
>        operational state is transient and modified by interactions
with
>        internal components or other systems via specialized protocols.
>
>     o  Statistical data is the set of read-only data created by a
system
>        itself.  It describes the performance of the system and its
>        components.
>
> Operational state data is sometimes called ephemeral (or
non-persistent
> configuration data), as opposed to the "configuration data" that is
> persistent.
> See RFC 6244 section 4.3.2.x for some useful examples.
>
> The statement has been carefully crafted to cover the 4 different
cases:
>
>          SNMP NETCONF/YANG
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
---------------------------------------------+
>              Configuration data  | SHOULD NOT specify writable MIB
> modules    |  SHOULD use NETCONF/YANG          |
>
|-----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
---------------------------------------------|
>       Operational State data  | Not clear guidelines at time point in
> time  (*)   |   SHOULD use NETCONF/YANG         |
>
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------+
>
>
> Let me focus on (*).
> Some of you are telling: SNMPset is not enabled in networks, period.
> Don't specify new writable MIB modules, even for operational state
data,
> it doesn't make sense.
> Some others are telling: Note that this statement limits the
discussion
> to configuration data. Note also that there is no standard way to
modify
> operational state via NETCONF at this point in time (so it would be
> strange to discourage SNMP if there is no standardized alternative).
>
> I believe we need some more discussion on this specific point. Please
> share your point of view:
> - Should we keep the statement as it is, but better explain it? (which
> might require more background, so maybe a draft instead of a brief
> statement)

Make it a draft, with an IETF Last Call.  It is too important for just
this list.

Tom Petch

> - Should we extend the statement and remove "persistent" from this
> sentence: SNMP MIB modules creating and 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?
> - Something else?
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>