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