Subject: Re: [netmod] Arch draft comments

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:00:43 -0400

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" writes:
>Here are my comments and questions. I apologize for the delay. 

Appreciate the comments and have incorporated them.  Some issues:

>3. I prefer to refer to NETMOD rather than YANG in the general sections.
>The document is about how NETCONF and NETMOD architecture works, with
>NETMOD including YANG, but not only YANG. From this perspective naming
>YIN a 'related technology' is misguiding. YIN is an integral part of the
>NETMOD architecture. 

NETMOD is the name of the working group, not any specific technology.  In
this section, NETCONF is referring to a protocol, not a working group.  In
a few years, the term NETMOD will be meaningless, so I'd like to avoid
referencing it.

Is YIN integral?  One can make a complete YANG-based system with out
needing YIN.  YIN is a means of allowing folks to avoid implementing
YANG parsers, using XML parsers instead.  I don't see this as integral.

>5. I had a hard time in understanding what section 6 tries to tell. A
>device that includes an unacceptable deviations behavior may behave as
>unexpectedly you can get, and I cannot see how an application can
>'expect' and deal with such implementations.

This section explains the architecture behind YANG's features and
deviations.

> Also the usage of the term
>'node' in this section is misguiding - do you mean routers? But then
>people may use some NETCONF and NETMOD for hosts, or servers, or other
>network devices. 

The document uses "node" in the YANG sense, here and elsewhere.
Do I need to replicate parts of the YANG draft's terminology here?

>6. Section 7 does not seem to say anything useful

Please suggest new wording or contents.

>7. I am not sure that the Security Considerations section should be
>null. We are defining an architecture and not only a data modeling
>language in this document. Is there nothing to say for example about
>access-rights on the different elements of the management domain and how
>they are being kept or mapped in the different translations? 

I didn't think we were not addressing access rights in the WG.  What
does the draft need to say on the subject?

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 18:17:50 +0200

Thanks for the answer. Much of what you say makes sense. A couple of
clarifications in line. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Shafer [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> 

Maybe you should to the extent of making clear the intent to a person
who is reading this document first out of the pile of NETMOD documents. 

> Please suggest new wording or contents.

Take it out!

> >access-rights on the different elements of the management domain and 
> >how they are being kept or mapped in the different translations?
> 
> I didn't think we were not addressing access rights in the 
> WG.  What does the draft need to say on the subject?

Can different clients have different access rights (or no rights) to
certain parts of the configuration in the servers?

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:58:17 -0400

>certain parts of the configuration in the servers? 

IMHO sure, as dictated by the access control model.  But we do not
yet have an architecture for this, so I did not mention it.

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 08:51:36 -0700

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Regards,
> 1. In the Abstract you say '   NETCONF and YANG are pieces of an
> ambitious plan to improve network management.'. Please keep your hidden
> agenda in the dark :-) Neither NETCONF nor YANG were chartered with such
> ambitious plans. I suggest to reformulate the phrasing keeping the scope
> to what was approved by consensus in the IETF (configuration management,
> notifications capabilities). You can certainly mention that the
> architecture is extensible and may cover more management functionality
> in the future, but better keep it less declarative at this phase. The
> title should also rather be 'A NETCONF and NETMOD based Architecture for
> Network Management'. 
> 

I don't think there is any hidden agenda here.
The <get> operation is not a secret.
The use of vendor RPC operations as verbs is no secret either.
What you call a hidden agenda, I call a pent-up demand for replacement
of a 20 year old technology base with something more powerful
and extensible.

How about

  'improve certain aspects of network management'

or some other phrase indicating a subset of NM?

Andy

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:57:49 +0200

> From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:52 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Phil Shafer; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] Arch draft comments
> 
> > ambitious plan to improve network management.'. Please keep your 
> > hidden agenda in the dark :-) Neither NETCONF nor YANG were 
> chartered 
> > with such ambitious plans. I suggest to reformulate the phrasing 
> > keeping the scope to what was approved by consensus in the IETF 
> > (configuration management, notifications capabilities). You can 
> > certainly mention that the architecture is extensible and may cover 
> > more management functionality in the future, but better 
> keep it less 
> > declarative at this phase. The title should also rather be 
> 'A NETCONF 
> > and NETMOD based Architecture for Network Management'.
> > 
> 
> What you call a hidden agenda, I call a pent-up demand for 
> replacement of a 20 year old technology base with something 
> more powerful and extensible.
> 
> 
> How about
> 

This would be better and reflect what NETCONF was chartered to do at
this phase. 

Dan

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:11:31 -0400

>of a 20 year old technology base with something more powerful

I nuked the sentence completely.

Thanks,
 Phil