Hi, Comments inline.
-- David Harrington [email protected] +1-603-828-1401 On 9/14/12 9:54 AM, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: > >With any I-D/RFC, you either get it adopted by a Working Group or you do >it as an individual submission. In terms of your work, both are about >equal. In terms of the work of others, the latter tends to burden some >people more than the former so there is a push to use a WG. I see things differently. I think the individual draft requires less work by others. An AD can sponsor the draft, and ask the IESG to approve it. A WG is used to get a wider review of the proposal. >There is no >WG currently in the IETF that focuses on MIBs, this, OPSAWG, is about >the nearest. The key players are the WG chairs and an Area Director; >the web site tells you who they are and you can see on the WG list >archive what they have said lately about what and form a view as to how >supportive they are. Well, ask them directly if that is your style. >Look too at the WG charter > >"The OPSAWG will undertake only work items that are proved to have at >least a reasonable level of interest from the operators and users >community and have a committed number of editors and reviewers." I have not seen a large demand for this proposed object from operators. I think asking the WG for review will be important to 1) establish operator demand, 2) establish implementation feasibility of providing this information via SNMP, 3) help to ensure that a clear, unambiguous definition of "available" > >Um. > >On the route of individual submission, it as an AD and a WG chair (or >perhaps a former WG chair) who have a lot more work to do to push an I-D >through to a standard; you would need their active support. Hence the >push to use a WG - and if the WG and/or its chairs are reluctant to take >it on, then the work is unlikely to happen. IIRC, a WG chair is NOT needed to push an ID through to standard. An AD can sponsor it alone, although most like to see a separate document shepherd (who might be a chair or ex-chair). The AD just needs to convince the IESG to approve it as a standard. And the IESG might want some proof of operator demand, implementation feasibility, and community consensus on the definition. > >As you probably gather, SNMP and MIB modules are regarded somewhat as a >legacy technology, Netconf/Netmod being the current incarnation. So if >you were to propose the conversion of the hr MIB module to netmod, then >I would expect you to see more enthusiasm; but that is, of course, a >quantum leap. Since the object being proposed reports operational state, and is a read-only object that is not configurable, and detection of significant state change may be important for applications, periodic polling of a MIB object using SNMP seems the appropriate choice of tool; I don't see this as configuration information appropriate for the netconf/YANG toolset (except as part of an overall HR configuration data model - but that's a whole different proposal). Therefore I would not expect more enthusiasm for a netconf/YANG solution. > >Tom Petch > >> Thanks again, >> Sheppy >> > > >_______________________________________________ >OPSAWG mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
