Re: OPSAREA strategy

David Harrington wrote:
> Agreed.
> 
> Some operators told us there was a disconnect.
> So we deliberately sought feedback from a wide range of operators and
> found agreement there was a disconnect.
> And we are moving to a multi-protocol approach because operators told
> us there was a disconnect.
> We also got some suggestions about how to proceed to close the gap
> between operators' needs and IETF NM solutions.
> But the operators haven't come home yet ...
> 
> The IETF is now faced with a problem. We now have multiple protocols,
> and most defined their own information models, data modeling language
> and data models, and we are not sure how to correlate information
> available from different protocols. And while some in the IETF think
> that is an important problem to resolve, and standardization is the
> obvious answer, real world operators have been using multiple
> protocols successfully without vendor-neutral standards for
> cross-protocol correlation. 
> 
> Prior to the 2002 workshop, the OPS area led an effort to meet with
> operators at operator forums, such as NANOG.
> I recommend the OPS area drive an effort to get operator feedback
> again.
> Let's get some feedback on IETF NM work since 2002, get suggestions
> from operator experience on whether and how to standardize information
> across multiple NM protocols, be sure we understand operators' needs
> in today's networks,
> and get some suggestions for operators' emerging needs that the IETF
> could better address over the next five to ten years.
> 
> Let's be sure we don't move down the disconnect road again.
> 

I agree another workshop would be useful, but I think
many issues are being addressed by NETCONF and YANG.
I prefer to just get more work done that we know
needs to be done.

The NETMOD WG has been working with the IPFIX WG and
their development of the ipfix-psamp.yang data model
has been very helpful in determining requirements
for 'real-world' domain-specific models.  It will
be interesting to compare configuration of IPFIX
via CLI vs. SNMP vs. NETCONF/YANG and evaluate the
strengths and weaknesses of each one.

My original comment (as Balazs understood) is that
we do not have any YANG infrastructure in place so
domain-specific WGs like IPFIX have a reasonable
chance of success using NETCONF/YANG.  Hopefully,
this work will begin as soon as YANG is approved:
    * system group
    * interfaces group
    * entity group
    * access control model

It took many years to agree to each one of these bullets
for SNMP.  I am not patient enough to spend the
next 20 years reinventing what SNMP already standardized
over the last 25 years.  Others are looking forward
to starting from scratch.  That is why I think rough consensus
on a 5 year multi-protocol development plan would help.


> David Harrington

Andy