Hi -
On 2021-03-10 12:43 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
Dear Qin,
I believe this work repeats failures of the past but since the WG
agreed to entertain this, I will keep my mouth shut. I suggest you do
not spend your energy to convince the that this work is viable since
it is rather unlikely that I will change my mind.
I'm inclined to agree with Juergen.
I participated in policy-based management work in ISO/ITU projects
starting in the late 1980's, culminating in System Management:
Management Domain and Management Policy Management Function (ISO/IEC
10164-19) as well as the later projects in the IETF and DMTF. Whether
the problems are in the architecture, the specification, or
implementation, there's an ample body of experience suggesting
that this stuff is hard to get right, and to the extent that a
proposal resembles any of the previous work, one would be well-
advised to learn from the ways in which that previous work has
crashed and burned, or in some cases never really left the ground.
Have fun, and good luck.
YANG is for me _not_ a suitable policy language, it is at best a
language to carry policies written in a suitable policy language (and
I am not even sure about this). All attempts in the past to reach
agreement on a common usable standard policy language leading up to
interoperable implementations failed. The reasons are manifold but
strong (I think), standards-based interoperability at a generic policy
language abstraction layer is for me a myths.
Complete agreement with Juergen. One *might* use YANG to describe
the structure of policies, but it would be cumbersome for representing
policy semantics. The current trend in YANG-land embracing ever-
increasing deviation from "standardized" models means that standards-
based interoperability is getting harder, rather than easier, when
it comes to machine reasoning about the semantics of "related" models.
Please don't take this personal in any way. I just do not believe into
this work but I am happy to be proven wrong.
Ditto, kinda. I still think policy / intent-based management is a
laudable goal. But it's really hard, and there are many factors in
both the IETF's technology toolkit as well as its standardization
process that compound the difficulty of the problem itself.
Randy
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
