Hi,
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) <[email protected]>wrote: > .... >>> >> >> I wonder how you define the "minimal modular-function-set". Isn't this >> already a decision? >> The draft avoids defining function sets to be used. I assume different >> vendors will provide >> different monolithic devices. >> >> > There is two things that (in my view are/can be modular: > - the implementation > - the specification > > EVen if the specification is "modular", even then someone can chose to > implement it as a monolythic program/process I would think. And often that > can > save memory usage. > > I think this refers to the issues left unresolved by the "NETCONF Lite" discussions. The current NETCONF approach consists of a base protocol + several purely optional capabilities. This is a modular approach. The problem is that the base protocol is way too heavyweight for constrained devices. Another way to create modular functionality would look more like a hierarchy, not 1 mandatory blob + N optional blobs. NMS applications should be written so they can fall-back to lower functionality levels, in order to work with constrained devices. E.g. (not a complete list) Level 0: pre-configured; able to push pre-defined monitoring data Level 1: pre-configured; able to pull pre-defined monitoring data Level 2: pre-configured; able to pull user-defined filtered subsets of monitoring data Level 3: has config objects; requires a restart for new values to take affect Level 4: entire config (or pre-determined subset) can be replaced in bulk Level 5: ability to patch objects without replacing entire config Level 6: ability to lock datastores for write access Level 7: has transaction (all-or-none) capability Level 8: has recoverable transaction (confirmed-commit) capability Andy > > >>> - for requirement 4.9.001 >>> It might be good to add a refereence to RFC2914 ?? >>> Just thinking aloud. >>> >> Yes, RFC2914 is indeed interesting reference to add. >> >> >>> - for requirement 4.9.003 >>> is that more or less an "implementation" suggestion for requirement >>> 4.9.001 ?? >>> >> >> You are right. It could be seen as such. >> However, there might be different reasons why people would want to reduce >> the amount of traffic in the network. >> Congestion is one of them. One can also begin acting before congestion >> happens. WDYT? >> >> OK, maybe add a line of text about that then. IN my view it looked like > basically twice the > same requirement. But if you define it this way, then it can be seen as a > different requirement > may be. > > Bert > >> >>> See you all in the neaw year, which I hope is prosperous for you all. >>> >>> >> See you!!! Happy New Year!! >> >> Cheers, >> Mehmet >> >> >>> Bert >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSAWG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
