Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-schoenw-opsawg-copspr-historic-00.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

I agree and I support the direction, but I am not sure about the level
of detail that this document should enter in describing NETCONF and
YANG. Mentioning that COPS=PR is considered overtaken by events,
mentioning that NETCONF and YANG were developped to specifically meet
the operators requirements documented by RFC 3535, and also saying that
other areas may use NETCONF / YANG or other specific means to implement
configuration management, but COPS-PR is seldom or never mentioned as an
alternative seems to me sufficient. As David points it looks more
important to talk about the reasons COPS-PR was considered inadequate,
than showing in too much details how its replacements meet the needs. 

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: opsawg-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:opsawg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:49 AM
> To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> Cc: opsawg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] review of 
> draft-schoenw-opsawg-copspr-historic-00.txt
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > > s/the associated YANG data modeling language [YANG]/an associated 
> > > XML-based data modeling language [YANG]./
> > 
> > I am not sure what "XML-based" means nor do I think this 
> information 
> > is necessary. I prefer:
> > 
> > /an associated data modeling language called YANG [YANG]/
> 
> Your paragraph is about the IAB Workshop documented in 
> RFC3535, and apparently is there to explain why Netconf and 
> YANG are the (OPS) preferred alternatives:
>    An IAB Network Management Workshop held in 2002 [RFC3535] 
> lead to the
>    creation of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC4741]
>    and the associated YANG data modeling language [YANG].  These new
>    protocols are specifically designed to match the needs of network
>    operators and all configuration management related efforts in the
>    IETF are now centered on NETCONF and YANG.
> 
> RFC3535 reports:
>    4.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from 
> both protocol
>        developers and operators, that the IETF focus resources on the
>        standardization of configuration management mechanisms.
> 
>    5.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from 
> the operators
>        and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the
>        IETF/IRTF should spend resources on the development and
>        standardization of XML-based device configuration and 
> management
>        technologies (such as common XML configuration 
> schemas, exchange
>        protocols and so on).
> 
> Your paragraph tries to explain why Netconf and YANG are 
> preferred over COPS-PR, but I think more needs to be said 
> about which operators'
> needs are met, and how these alternatives meet the 
> requirements described in RFC3535. There are people who think 
> COPS-PR is useful, and we should explain why Netconf/YANG 
> should be used rather than COPS-PR. 
> 
> I suggest:
> 
>    An IAB Network Management Workshop held in 2002 [RFC3535] 
> led to the
>    creation of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC4741]
>    and an associated XML-based data modeling language [YANG]. 
>  These new
>    protocols are specifically designed to meet the 
> recommendations of the
>    workshop to address the needs of network operators:
>    - Netconf standardizes configuration management 
> mechanisms, and uses an 
>    Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based data encoding for 
> the configuration 
>    data as well as the protocol messages.
>    - YANG focuses on a limited problem space -  expressing 
> NETCONF data models, 
>    not arbitrary XML documents or arbitrary data models.  The 
> data models
>    described by YANG are designed to be easily operated upon 
> by NETCONF
>    operations. YANG modules can be translated into an XML 
> format called YANG
>    Independent Notation (YIN), allowing applications using
>    XML parsers and XSLT scripts to operate on the models. 
> 
> (I do think we should have a bit of discussion of the 
> technical reasons why COPS-PR was considered NOT RECOMMENDED 
> - the global lock, non-deterministic clients, etc.)
> 
> > So what was your proposal? What about this:
> > 
> >         [...] configuration management related efforts in the IETF
> >         operations and management area are now centered on NETCONF
> and
> >         YANG.
> 
> How about
> [...] device configuration management efforts in the IETF 
> Operations and Management Area are now centered on NETCONF 
> and YANG. Other areas of the IETF are considering the 
> NETCONF/YANG solution plus other possible alternatives for 
> configuration of their technologies.
> 
> dbh
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>