+1 -- David Harrington Ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx +1-603-828-1401 On 8/2/12 12:59 PM, "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. > >Regards, > >Dan > > > > >> -----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