Re: OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the Hiroshima sessionuploaded

David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 

Sounds interesting.  Sorry I missed the meeting.
I thought the OPSAWG was just odds and ends that
would otherwise fall though the cracks and not get done.

Until YANG is published as an RFC, it is not really relevant
to other WGs besides NETMOD.  The challenge (perhaps for the OPSAWG)
is to create and execute a coherent development plan for a
standard framework (IF-MIB, ENTITY-MIB, etc.).

The NETCONF WG lost its operator focus, and therefore
lost its operator co-Chair.  The focus was supposed
to be on configuration, but the notification work
was done instead.

I am not convinced that the mere publication of YANG will
produce any standards-based configuration of
any real networking devices.  That is going to require
agreement on core YANG modules that build on existing
IETF standards, not the ad-hoc reinvention of every
SNMP or CLI data structure ever written.

IMO the IESG should have a 5 year plan for success, and it is not met,
then the IETF should officially give up on network configuration.
The lack of any real commitment by the IESG to either NETCONF or SNMP
(for this function) is not helping.


Andy



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