[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [OPSAWG] call for opsawg agenda time requests
See in-line.
Regards,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opsawg-bounces at ietf.org
> [mailto:opsawg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 2:52 PM
> To: hideki.okita.pf at hitachi.com; sob at harvard.edu
> Cc: opsawg at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] call for opsawg agenda time requests
>
> 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 share your concerns, but this document is right now no more than an
individual submission I-D. Bringing it to the attention of the community
is fine, OPSAWG may be the right forum. Only further discussions can
enlighten whether it will be submitted as WG item, or other form of
document requesting IETF consensus.
>
> 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.
If this document went through the IETF stream it would be the IETF
consensus process that would point to such a problem. If it went through
the independent RFC Editor stream the IESG would be the one pointing to
such conflicts with an appropriate note.
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>