I also had a look at the draft and I think that the basic idea
of mapping virtual to real resources is very good.
Can't we easily align the draft with the ENTITY MIB data model?
I could imagine a MIB module based on the ENTITY MIB that realizes
the information model for virtual entities in SMI.
Juergen
On 26.10.09 13:51 "David Harrington" <ietfdbh at comcast.net> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature