OPSAREA strategy [was: Re: OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the Hiroshima sessionuploaded]
Balazs Lengyel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello, I agree that we need this debate. actually we have had a very similar debate internally within my company. As I see it we are already live in a multi-protocol OAM world, that has been decided by the market. IMHO there should be a set of recommended protocols that any WG/protocol developer in IETF should use for configuration/logging/performance management/ fault management. All draft authors should have a good reason if they want to use something else. An interesting point would be addressing/naming. As I see it configuration is heading for Netconf while fault management is using SNMP. These have very different naming systems. I have the basic use case: I get an alarm/trap about some resource in my node. I want to check the configuration/status of the resource, however I can't just copy the SNMP OID into a get/subtree-filter of a Netconf message. So what is the recommended way? I fully agree with Andy, that to make YANG/NETCONF work we will need some basic stuff, like MIB2 system branch, interface tables, else? This would be work for the OPS area. Balazs On 12/03/09 00:12, Andy Bierman wrote: > David Harrington wrote: > ... > >> I don't think IESG commitment is that important. I think market >> commitment is important. I think addressing real market needs is >> important. I think we need to start the discussion to understand what >> the emerging needs are so we can begin to address them. >> >> > Why would the market gravitate towards a standard > that is just standard operations on proprietary > data models? > > That is what I meant by a 5 year plan. > Is there going to be any standard data models > (like ipfix-psamp.yang) actually deployed? > If so, is there some coherence to the collective > set of YANG modules published by the IETF? > > If a domain-specific WG like IPFIX WG needs common > data modeling components (like an interfaces table), > then are they going to wait for that work, do it themselves, > invent some interim hack, or what? > > Isn't it up to the IESG to make sure the protocols they > approve have some development plan, or at least a stated direction > wrt/ protocol work being deployed over a long period of time? > > The market is already using SNMP and NETCONF for > proprietary data models. Nobody needs YANG for that. > Now that the IETF is developing YANG, there is some > expectation that the IETF will do something with it. > > >>> Andy >>> >>> > >>>> David Harrington >>>> > Andy > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area > -- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. System Manager ECN: 831 7320 Fax: +36 1 4377792 Tel: +36-1-437-7320 email: [email protected]