Yes. The question is whether a basic information model written in XML can be a useful starting point (trying to interpret the proposal made by Robert). Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:14 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: robert@xxxxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ... > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the > > agenda concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new > > architecture for management protocols. > > > > > > My personal take is that no one protocol, or one data modeling > > language can match the operational requirements to configure and > > manage the wide and wider range of hosts, routers and other network > > devices that are used to implement IP networks and protocols. We > > should be talking nowadays about a toolset rather than one tool that > > fits all. However, this is a discussion that just starts. > > NMS developers need to spend too many resources on translating naming > and other data-modeling specific details so they can be usable within > the application. So if 1 data modeling language is not used, then > deterministic, loss-less, round-trip translation between data modeling > languages is needed. Multiple protocols are not the problem -- > incompatible data from multiple protocols is the problem. > > > > > Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > > Of > >> Robert Raszuk > >> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM > >> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Basic ietf process question ... > >> > >> All, > >> > >> IETF documents have number of mandatory sections .. IANA Actions, > >> Security Considerations, Refs, etc ... > >> > >> Does anyone have a good reason why any new protocol definition or > >> enhancement does not have a build in mandatory "XML schema" section > >> which would allow to actually use such standards based enhancement in > >> vendor agnostic way ? > >> > >> There is a lot of talk about reinventing APIs, building network wide > > OS > >> platform, delivering SDNs (whatever it means at any point of time for > >> one) ... but how about we start with something very basic yet IMHO > >> necessary to slowly begin thinking of network as one plane. > >> > >> I understand that historically we had/still have SNMP however I have > >> never seen this being mandatory section of any standards track > > document. > >> Usually SNMP comes 5 years behind (if at all) making it obsolete by > >> design. > >> > >> NETCONF is great and very flexible communication channel for > >> provisioning. However it is sufficient to just look at number of ops > >> lists to see that those who tried to use it quickly abandoned their > >> efforts due to complete lack of XML schema from each vendor they > > happen > >> to use or complete mismatch of vendor to vendor XML interpretation. > >> > >> And while perhaps this is obvious I do not think that any new single > >> effort will address this. This has to be an atomic and integral part > > of > >> each WG's document. > >> > >> Looking forward for insightful comments ... > >> > >> Best, > >> R. > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg