Re: OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the Hiroshima sessionuploaded

Hi,

There are a few points I think did not get properly represented in the
minutes.
The audio archive recorded what was actually said.

Dave H. Why is OPSAREA needed? OAM is done in many several groups
forum. We have little real discussions.

more accurately: I think it might help if we tried to drive some
discussion in the OPS area. I am beginning to question what the OPS
area is doing in the IETF now. Operators don't come to the IETF
meetings very often. As we move to the multi-protocol NM model, lots
of OAM work is being done elsewhere in the IETF. If we don't do
operations, and management moves elsewhere, I am not sure what the O&M
area is for.

and ...
Dave H. There could be issue, OPSWG is where multi-protocol issues are
discussed without real plan/framework. We need to decide whether we
want to push YANG. We need to push this stuff. My company is looking
at it. 

more accurately: 
Dave H: The OPSAREA session could identify an issue that should be
discussed. For example, what does the community want to do about this
emerging multi-protocol management approach? We should get some debate
going. Right now, there is no discussion going on. 
Dan R: Discussion has been limited because we needed to get some
pieces into place. Now that we have RFC5706 Guidelines, and YANG and
the YANG architecture moving forward, we are in a better position to
discuss multi-protocol management. This type of discussion is value
that the OPS area can bring to the IETF. The OPSAWG WG has started to
work on these directions; we still have work to do.
Dave H: I think there are a few important issues we should be
discussing, probably in the OPS open area meeting. The OPSAWG WG is
defining how protocols should work together, such as syslog and SNMP.
But this work is being done piecemeal without any framework or real
plan about where we are going with this. YANG is about to be submitted
for standards track. I think we need a discussion of whether we want
to start encouraging other WGs to develop YANG models or not. I
haven't seen that discussion except in the Netconf and Netmod WGs,
where there is not surprisingly some bias on that question. We need to
have some of those discussions and they are not being driven in the
OPS area. My company is becoming concerned about the (lack of)
relevance of the work going on in the OPS area.

David Harrington
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:19 AM
> To: OPS Area (E-mail)
> Subject: [OPS-AREA] OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the 
> Hiroshima sessionuploaded
> 
> I have uploaded the preliminary minutes of the OPSAREA open meeting
in
> Hiroshima. Please read and send me any correction or supplementary
> information that I may have missed. 
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/minutes/opsarea.txt
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> 
> Dan
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>