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

Thomas Nadeau <[email protected]> Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:37:49 +0000
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.ops
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
	Sorry for not replying to this thread - been traveling and busy all weekend...  One comment inline below:


> 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].
> 
>    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)
> - 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?

	This is precisely what is the question: is the SET operation enabled in networks or not ?  I think the overwhelming answer is "no". The discussions that are rabbit holing into questions like "what is configuration?, "is it persistent, etc...?" are completely missing the point. The simple issue at hand is the fact that boxes in networks are programmed to reject ANY SNMP SET operations.  This is what Randy was channeling from operators the other day as well. We really need to listen to the operational feedback on this one. 

	--Tom


> 
> Regards, Benoit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 842 B)