RE: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...

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(_at_)yumaworks(_dot_)com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:14 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: robert(_at_)raszuk(_dot_)net; opsawg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
> ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> <dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com> 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
> > > [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
> > Of
> > > Robert Raszuk
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:25 PM
> > > Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > > 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg