Re: [OPSAWG] call for opsawg agenda time requests

["David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net>]

Hi,

I did a quick read of this document. I have a concern.

The IETF decided years ago that a MIB module was the preferred
mechanism for explicitly documenting an IETF standards-track data
model and (implicitly) the IETF standards-track information model.

Once the IETF began to accept that having only one data modeling
language (the SMI) might not be adequate, the IETF struggled with the
question of "how do we deal with multiple modeling languages?", and we
started to pay attention to the distinction between data model and
information model. RFC3444 was published as output of the NMRG to help
clarify the distinction.

The informational model in
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-01.txt is similar to
the information model that is implicit in the ENTITY-MIB data model
design. 

I would not like to see anybody make the mistake of thinking that this
Informational document represents IETF consensus on an information
model for managing virtual networks. This document needs to be very
clear that the IETF already has consensus on an (implicit) information
model for managing physical entities, logicial entities, and the
mappings between them. 

I think defining an information model for the management of virtual
networks is very important work, and I think this document really
misses an opportunity to help **standardize** how virtual network
management systems present information to NMS clients. This document
would be terrific if it extracted and documented the information model
implicit in the existing IETF standard ENTITY-MIB, and went on to
discuss whether the existing information model does or does not meet
the needs of real-world implementations/deployments. 

If the existing implicit information model does meet real-world needs,
then I think such a document might become a BCP or an Informational
guideline for managing virtual networks. If the existing implicit
information does not meet real-world needs, then the document could be
a justification for an IETF standards track information model that
meets needs better than the current implicit information model.

Unfortunately, the current document does not even mention that there
is an information model implicit in the ENTITY-MIB standard, which
makes me question whether this document should be published as an RFC
without a clear statement that it ignores, and may be in conflict
with, existing IETF standards.

dbh


> -----Original Message-----
> From: opsawg-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:opsawg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> hideki.okita.pf at hitachi.com
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:33 AM
> To: sob at harvard.edu
> Cc: opsawg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] call for opsawg agenda time requests
> 
> Scott,
> 
> 
> I'd like to have a slot at the opsawg session in Hiroshima 
> to take a presentation about the update of our network 
> virtulization model.
> 
> "Virtual Network Management Information Model"
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-okita-ops-vnetmodel-01.txt
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hideki Okita
> 
> 
> >please send requests for agenda time slots for the opsawq 
> session in Hiroshima
> >to the opsawg list asap
> >
> >Scott
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>