Subject: RE: [NGO] BOF Proposal: Comparing Approaches to NETCONF Modeling (CANMOD)

From: Mehmet Ersue <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:59:53 +0000 (GMT)

Hi David,

as a contributor I appreciate the BoF proposal you submitted. As I 
mentioned before we strongly support the CANMOD BoF.

The authors of the complementary requirements draft (draft-linowski-...) 
are generating currently the fitting solution document as -00 (I hope it'll be 
on time).

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext David Partain [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:20 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [NGO] BOF Proposal: Comparing Approaches to NETCONF 
> Modeling(CANMOD)
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> For your information, I've submitted the following proposal 
> for a BOF during 
> the upcoming IETF in March.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> BOF proposal - Comparing Approaches to NETCONF Modeling (CANMOD)
> 
> BOF length: 2.5 hours
> 
> Chairs: TBD
> 
> The NETCONF Working Group has completed a base protocol to be
> used for configuration management.  However, the NETCONF protocol
> needs a standard content layer.  The current specifications do
> not include a modeling language or accompanying rules for how to
> model the management information that is to be configured and
> monitor using NETCONF.  A data modeling framework is needed which
> supports ongoing development of IETF and vendor-defined modules,
> within an integrated and seamless conceptual configuration
> datastore and supporting infrastructure.
> 
> The goal of the BOF is to determine if there is sufficient
> interest and cohesion to form a working group to standardize a
> data modeling language for NETCONF.  If so, the target is for the
> BOF to recommend one of the proposals as the starting point as a
> modeling language for NETCONF.
> 
> A design team collected, clarified and categorized requirements
> for a data modeling language from a broad group of IETF
> participants. Many of these requirements had broad agreement. All
> of these requirements, and a collection of use-cases motivating
> the requirements where broad agreement was not reached, are
> documented in an Internet Draft. The design team will also
> prepare an example annotated instance document which incorporates
> many of the requirements.  All BOF participants are expected to
> read this document and to understand the basic concepts of the
> NETCONF protocol.
> 
> In order to ensure productive discussion, the BOF chairs will
> only grant agenda time to discuss these concrete proposals.
> Discussion should focus on the unique features and approaches of
> each proposal, use cases that are explicitly supported or not
> supported, and how important these use cases are to the
> community.
> 
> The community is invited to propose (as an Internet Draft)
> specific concrete data modeling proposals that substantially
> address the requirements gathered by the design team. These
> proposals should explain any additional requirements or features
> which motivated the specific design, which requirements are not
> met, why, and to what extent the approach has been implemented or
> modeled.  Each proposal should also include a data model
> definition for the example annotated instance document.
> 
> The BOF will only spend a short time on the requirements
> gathering work and will not debate the validity of the
> requirements.  A case for or against specific requirements may,
> however, be made during presentations of specific solutions.
> 
> Send comments on this BoF proposal to the NGO (NETCONF Goes On)
> list: [email-masked]
> 
> Input Documents:
> 
>   Requirements for a Configuration Data Modeling Language
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-presuhn-rcdml-00.txt
> 
>   Drafts where teams write up how they deal with the
>   requirements (not yet published since the requirements draft
>   has to come out first)
> 
>   An Evaluation Framework for Data Modeling Languages in Network
>   Management Domain
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xiao-evaluate-dml-01.txt
> 
>   NETCONF Data Modeling Language Requirements
>   
> http://www.ersue.de/I-D/draft-linowski-netconf-DML-requirement
> s-00.txt 
> 
>   YANG - A data modeling language for NETCONF:
>   
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bjorklund-netconf-ya
> ng-00.txt
> 
>   Using XML Schema to define NETCONF Content:
>   http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chisholm-netconf-model-07.txt
> 
>   Other as-yet unpublished drafts
> 
> Agenda (preliminary since we don't know which proposals
> there will be):
> 
> (times may have to be adjusted depending on how many proposals
> there are.)
> 
>   1. Introduction (one of the chairs): 5 minutes
> 
>   2. Report from the requirements design team: 15 minutes
> 
>   3. "Using XML Schema to define NETCONF Content": how it meets
>      the agreed requirements, which additional requirements it
>      meets and chooses not to.  (Sharon: 25 minutes)  Clarifying
>      questions only.
> 
>      Discussion of proposal (10 minutes)
> 
>   4. "something relaxng-ish": how it meets the agreed
>      requirements, which additional requirements it meets and
>      chooses not to.  (Presenter not yet known: 25 minutes) Clarifying
>      questions only.
> 
>      Discussion of proposal (10 minutes)
> 
>   5. "YANG - A data modeling language for NETCONF": how it meets
>      the agreed requirements, which additional requirements it
>      meets and chooses not to.  (YANG: 25 minutes)  Clarifying
>      questions only.
> 
>      Discussion of proposal (10 minutes)
> 
>   6. Other?
> 
>   7. General discussion and Way forward (rest of the time)
> 
> Proposed charter for the NETCONF Modeling Working Group, to be
> formed after this BOF:
> 
>   The Working Group will standardize a modeling language and
>   associated modeling rules to be used when defining management
>   information to be used specifically with NETCONF.
>   
>   The Working Group is specifically NOT chartered to standardize
>   a protocol-independent modeling language, but broader
>   applicability of the language should not be needlessly
>   hindered.
> 
>   The Working Group will use XX as the starting point for
>   standardization.  (where XX is the output of this BOF)
> 
>   Deliverables, etc. to be decided later.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
> 

       __________________________________  Ihre erste Baustelle? Wissenswertes für Bastler und Hobby Handwerker. www.yahoo.de/clever

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo