ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-08-03 09:32:16
Hi Juergen,

Many thx for the great suggestion !

However perhaps you are much more knowledgeable in that area and could recommend which model fit the best the requirement to standardize configuration of any new protocol or protocol extension at least in the space of routing and routing protocols or services being based on them ?

As you know the current IRS framework driven by junisco is trying to come with common API to the routing system agreed across vendors. This is great as attempts never happened in the past.

But if we are at this phase I think creating a network elements abstraction layer and be able to configure/monitor any protocol and service at the unified way is one of the building blocks we should start with. And of course I think this is very clear to everyone if it is not made mandatory in each draft as new section or appendix it is just not going to happen in practice.

Best regards,
R.

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:22:10AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:

Aha .. so you are saying that MIBs are not mandatory .... Very
interesting. So I guess SSH to the routers and box by box cli
provisioning is here to stay for a while I think :(


Robert,

you may want to take a closer look at the data models currently being
defined in the NETMOD working group. Please review them and send any
comments.

/js