Randy, Is the OPS-NM Configuration Management Requirements (ops-nm) Bof <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/52/176.htm> from IETF 52 (10 December 2001) the meeting you were thinking of? There are also references to an IAB meeting in 2002 about the lack of use of SNMP for network configuration in SNMP compared with CLI, Netconf, Netflow <https://www.snmpcenter.com/snmp-versus-other-protocols/> that culminated in RFC 3535 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3535>.
Robin, Regarding the draft in question, I generally agree with the concerns others have made that it doesn’t appear to provide anything that other technologies such as YANG provide. Also, IMO, the draft needs considerable work to be more easily understood. For example, there are many acronyms such as CSNP and PSNP that are not defined, and may be misunderstood by readers not familiar with ISIS. In the packet format sections, there are several uncapitalized uses of ‘should’.. Do the authors consider these to be non-normative requirements? There are also statements such as "Network OAM statistics show that a relatively large part of the network issues are caused by the disfunction of various routing protocols and MPLS signalings” that are offered without citations. Regards, Greg > On Jul 7, 2018, at 8:25 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > > robin, > > i am not ignoring you. i did not want to write unless i had something > possibly useful to say; and that requires pretending to think, always > difficult. > >> I would also like to propose following draft for your reference which >> trigger us to move forward for better network maintenance with >> multiple tools in which gRPC/NETCOF and NMP/BMP may play different >> roles: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-song-ntf/ > > [ warning: my memory is likely fuzzy, and the glass is dark ] > > at an ietf in the late '90s[0], there was a hastily called meeting of > the snmp standards bearers and a bunch of operators. the snmp folk were > shocked to learn that no operators used snmp for other than monitoring; > no one had snmp write enabled on devices; ops configured with the > cli[1]. from this was born netconf and the xml path. credit where due: > phil eng was already well down this path at the time of that meeting. > > but netconf/xml was a mechanism and lacked a model. snmp had models, > whether we thought they were pretty or not. thus yang was born, and , > of course, a new generation wants to use the latest modern toys such as > restconf, openconfig, json, ... > > draft-song-ntf yearns for an "architectural framework for network > telemetry," a lofty and worthwhile goal not, a priori, a bad one. but a > few comments from a jaded old dog. > > for a new paradigm to gain traction, it must be *significantly* better > than the old one, or the old paradigm must be clearly failing. in the > story above, snmp was clearly failing, aside from using an unfashionable > encoding. and yang clearly provided something needed and missing from > netconf. note that this paradigm shift has taken over 20 years; and we > dis the itu et alia. > > second, draft-song-ntf is an export-only model. while telemetry is > extremely important, i will be very frustrated if i can only hear and > may not speak. and the more it evolves to a really attractive paradigm > and model, the more annoyed i will be that i can not use it for control. > > and lastly, to quote don knuth, "premature optimization is the root of > all evil." do not get distracted by squeezing bits out of an encoding. > focus on things such as simple, clear, securable, extensible ... > > randy > > --- > > 0 - i would love help pinning down which meeting > > 1 - i still have the "it's the cli, stupid" tee shirt. an american > political slogan of the era was "it's the economy, stupid." >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
