Subject: [OPSAWG] Roles of IETF management protocols in draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw

From: Juergen Quittek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:36:13 +0000

Dear all,

In draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw-01 there is a section on the

    "IETF Standard Management Framework".

This section describes SNMP in several subsections and at the end it
there is a subsection titled

    "Supplementary Components of the IETF Management Framework"

Here NETCONF, Syslog, and IPFIX are described.
Does this really reflect our consensus about the roles of these protocols?
Do we see them today and in the future just as "supplementary" components of
the IETF management framework? Maybe the view, that SNMP is _THE_ IETF
management protocol and others are just supplements is becoming a bit
old-fashioned.

I would rather (slowly) start stating that the IETF management framework
consists of a set of protocols including SNMP, Syslog, NETCONF, and IPFIX
that all have different properties and are designed for different
(management) application areas.

    Juergen

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:23:40 +0100

> (management) application areas.

+1

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:26:50 +0100

Hi Juergen and Juergen,

my attempt was to start with "Internet Standard Management Framework" as
it is described in RFC 3410 and to extend it.

But I agree in the mean time (i.e. 8 years after 3410) we can state that
the IETF management framework consists of a set of protocols, which are
on a par.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of ext Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:24 PM
> To: Juergen Quittek
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Roles of IETF management protocols in draft-
> ersue-opsawg-management-fw
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:33:36 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>
To: "Juergen Quittek" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 9:23 PM

> > (management) application areas.

Trouble is, I find it hard to find a word that covers these four disparate
protocols, and think that framework is not right (hotch-potch might fit, but I
do not expect to see that in an I-D).  We have moved on from a framework that
was capable of meeting all needs, or at least was thought to be capable of doing
so, to multiple divergent paths with little in common (apart from an agreement
that there is no right way to provide security:-).

I think that using 'framework' will do us no favours - because we do not have
one - and that it would be better to reflect this.

"SNMP has served well as the IETF standard management framework for nearly two
decades but is now complemented by other, more specific protocols, such as
NETCONF, syslog and IPFIX."

Tom Petch

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:01:33 -0800

Juergen,
> management protocol and others are just supplements is becoming a bit
Agreed.
> (management) application areas.
and have different data models.

Regards, Benoit.