Dear Hirochika, Very sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
> Dear Joel and Benoit, > > Thank you. > > Since Joel has invited Benoit, another AD of OPS AREA, to this discussion, > I summarize my question for clarity as follows: > > The IESG statement (*1) encourages to remove read-write access to objects > related to configuration from MIB modules. That's not quite the message. The IESG statement is there to discourage the specification of completely new MIB modules with read-write objects (like a complete new framework around SNMP) and to point to NETCONF/YANG instead, but the IESG statement is not there to forbid the use of read-write objects. There are cases where read-write objects are useful (ex: your notifications in last version). I believe that you try to find hard rules in this statement. Regards, Benoit > However, the scope of the > nomenclature "configuration" is not clear to me. In my understanding, > "configuration" does not contain non-persistent (volatile) changes to objects, > such as virtual machine administrative state (vmAdminState) in our I-D (*2). > They does not affect the configuration but changes state of the target system. > Therefore, I think they are not under "SNMP MIB modules creating and > modifying configuration state" stated in the IESG statement. > > Is my understanding correct or not? > > (*1) http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html > (*2) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-00 > > Hirochika > > > On May 27, 2014, at 3:55 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > >> yeah if you want to discuss it with the ops/management ADs and the >> chairs that's fine. >> >> I don't think there's a reason to involve the whole iesg. >> >> Thanks >> joel >> >> On 5/26/14, 10:48 AM, Hirochika Asai wrote: >>> js and Joel, >>> >>> Thank you for your comments. >>> >>> I agree that the IESG statement seems to be talking about configuration, >>> but I cannot definitely say that the objects I listed in my previous E-mail >>> are out of the IESG statement's scope. >>> >>> I think it would be better to move this issue to the IESG, but I don't keep >>> up the procedure. May I, as an author of the draft, send an E-mail >>> stating this issue to [email protected], CCing WG? Or ask WG chairs to >>> handle it? >>> >>> Thank you. >>> Hirochika >>> >>> >>> On May 27, 2014, at 1:24 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/26/14, 9:20 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:42:47AM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/14, 2:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>>>>>> Asai, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the IESG statement is here: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My reading is that it specifically talks about configuration. While >>>>>>> the discussion started with "lets ban all write access", it may be >>>>>>> important to note that the final statement does not say this. Hence, >>>>>>> I am not sure we have to remove the MAX-ACCESS read-write. >>>>>> some of the vm options do cause me existential peril. The remaining >>>>>> one's however do not. so I think Juergen's assessment is a correct one. >>>>>> The statement seems to be serving it's purpose! >>>>>> >>>>> Joel, can you please decrypt your message so that it becomes perhaps >>>>> actionable? >>>> I'm agreeing with you. >>>> >>>>> /js >>>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
