Subject: Re: [karp] Please take a look at draft-hartman-karp-ops-model-00.txt

From: Gregory Lebovitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:45:35 -0700

inline...

On 7/28/10 6:06 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Hi.  I will respond in detail in about two weeks and incorporate most of
> your suggestions.
>
>
> however I think there's one area of disagreement it is good to bring up
> on the list now so we're prepared to discuss it in the meeting.
>
> You mentioned that several of the choices I discussed about
> configuration are vendor specific.

There were several things that I said were local implementation details. 
I'll have to look back and see, but I don't think I said anything was 
"vendor specific" as in it is sent in the protocol, but we don't need to 
specify it.

We'll probably need to pick through the things I said were 
implementation details one by one and see which would affect 
interoperability, if any, and which are simply a matter of how one code 
base might implement locally vs another.
> I agree that we could take that position.  However doing so means that
> we'll never get good interoperability with management.

I think we both want good interop wrt management.

>   We would have
> some nasty choices when designing a MIB or Netconf schema:
>
> * Support all the possibilities
> * Don't manage the objects
> * Only get management for some implementations

correct that we need to consider this for all objects in the protocol.
> The first bullet point produces very bad results for managers and
> operators.
>
> I've been following the discussions of best practices for managability
> and O&M considerations that the O&M area has been working on.  I think
> that specifying the sort of details in information model necessary to
> make a protocol something we can manage is well within what we'll be
> expected to do by the O&M area. I think there is significant value in
> starting early and getting as much operator feedback as we can.

Nothing in your above statements I disagree with. We'll need to look at 
specific text to see where you think my comments contradict any of the 
O&M goals above, which I'm happy to do with you.

Gregory

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IETF related Email from
Gregory Lebovitz
Juniper Networks