Re: OPSAREA - preliminary minutes of the Hiroshima sessionuploaded

Thanks. I will make these corrections, and also try to find time to
listen to the audio feed to correct other misses. In the meantime any
other corrections based on audio or on personal memories of what was
said in the meeting are welcome. 

Regards,

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 8:24 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'OPS Area (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] 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
> > 
> 
>