Re: [netmod] operational knobs

[Jon Saperia <saperia at jdscons.com>]

On Nov 1, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:

> Jon Saperia wrote:
> > Randy,
> >
> > Good points.
> >
> > In the context of the current conversation, this history argues for
> > getting as much of NETCONF/YANG correct the first time.  I mean not  
> > only
> > for the immediate application to which the protocol and language  
> > will be
> > put, but also, where people want it to go.
>
> I disagree.
> We have a lot of theory, but not 1 config=true
> object in any I-D or RFC.  We have a description-stmt
> for a reason.
>
> It is much easier for a WG to reach consensus
> on advanced features if there is common experience
> based on well-known data models in use.

I was not suggesting chrome polishing or advanced features.    
Yesterday you asked about operational knobs and said current drafts do  
not support them.  My point is that, if as you suggest this is to be a  
requirement, that there is consensus  that it can be addressed  
incrementally, if not right now.
jon
> There also needs to be a YANG Doctors eventually, like MIB Doctors,
> so sufficient review resources are available throughout the
> IETF YANG data modeling experience.  This is a far more effective
> process than working forever on YANG 1.0, because we know it
> is not perfect.
>
>
> > To the degree NETCONF/YANG are successful, it will be difficult to
> > change them to make adjustments/corrections that the WG chooses to  
> > punt
> > now.
>
> But now we have capabilities and a <hello> message.
> Incremental additions are part of the plan.
>
>
> > /jon
>
> Andy
>
> > On Nov 1, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >
> > > Hi -
> > >
> > > > From: "Phil Shafer" <phil at juniper.net>
> > > > To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>
> > > > Cc: "NETMOD Working Group" <netmod at ietf.org>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:01 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] operational knobs
> > > ...
> > > > I've always been curious why new verbs weren't added to SNMP
> > > > instead of this kludge.  Poking bytes into control registers
> > > > clearly wasn't the example to follow and the distaste for it
> > > > seems universal, but I've never grok'd why verbs like CREATE,
> > > > DELETE, LOCK, CHANGE, PRE-CREATE, DISABLE, &etc weren't made.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Adding them would have been a change to the protocol's grammar,
> > > which would have been a non-starter for several reasons:
> > >
> > >  -  re-starting the clock at "Proposed Standard" each time one of
> > >     these was added would have been politically unpalatable (CMIP
> > >     was a full IS, and, since it already had verbs for Create,
> > > Delete, etc.,
> > >     adding these to SNMP would also have been seen as an admission
> > >     of inadequacy)
> > >
> > >  - changing the grammar would have adversely affected the deployed  
> > > base
> > >     of management systems and agents, as well as the various  
> > > vendors'
> > >     development tools, and would have invalidated the
> > > interoperability suites,
> > >     bake-offs, and test events.  The ability to work with generic
> > > "dumb" MIB
> > >     browsers was demanded by users.
> > >
> > >   - by the time SMP, Secure SNMP, SNMPv2, SNMPv2*, etc, started
> > > appearing,
> > >     access control models were being formulated in terms of object
> > > identifiers.
> > >     If an "Action" facility were to be added, we'd have had to
> > > formulate the policies
> > >     in ways similar to how VACM processes notifications, which would
> > > severly
> > >     constrain how people could formulate actions.  (Not that that
> > > would have been
> > >     a bad thing)
> > >
> > > FWIW the CMIP experience, while it did establish that having  
> > > distinct
> > > verbs for
> > > Create and Delete was a Good Thing, and had provisions for
> > > synchronization
> > > built into the object model and the protocol, also demonstrated  
> > > that a
> > > generic
> > > Action facility, while useful, needed to be used *Very* carefully.
> > > Like netconf RPCs,
> > > it provided the ability to shovel around rather arbitrary syntax.
> > > Mating this with
> > > fine-grained access control expressed in terms of the object model  
> > > is
> > > hard.  Later discussions of "we wish we had" in CMIP-land supported
> > > limiting
> > > the payload to things that would look like variable bindings, rather
> > > than arbitrary
> > > ASN.1, to ease matching up the bits and pieces of actions with the
> > > objects'
> > > data models.
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod at ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod