[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: NetConf Data Modeling Discussion
Reasonable request. In fact, we have done some of that inside Cisco.
We have simplified the subclassing hierarchy (ie, removed classes) - but
kept the high-level concepts and semantics. Also, we have simplified
the keying and naming structure, and standardized on InstanceID
everywhere (it is only the key in the newer classes of CIM, starting in
V2.7). So, we can programmatically map back to CIM, but don't have all
the baggage. (This won't be new news to anyone in DMTF, since we have
pitched this model several times as a seed for the new CIM V3 work.)
Andrea
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Branislav Meandzija
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 4:48 PM
To: Andrea Westerinen; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Faye Ly; Sharon Chisholm;
netconf
Cc: wg-network@dmtf.org
Subject: RE: NetConf Data Modeling Discussion
Hi Andrea,
I am in favor of blending in the DMTF work as long as we include a
"simple" data-model variant that does not require all the complexities
of CIM. We've been playing around with CIM for a while now and abandoned
it for simple installations that can get away with much less generic
stuff and more deployment specific stuff.
Branislav
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Andrea Westerinen
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:04 AM
> To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'Faye Ly'; 'Sharon Chisholm'; 'netconf'
> Cc: wg-network@dmtf.org
> Subject: RE: NetConf Data Modeling Discussion
>
>
> Could I make a suggestion that we try to blend the DMTF's Common
> Information Modeling work into this? There is a great base of
> abstractions in CIM (systems, services, hardware, etc.) and new
> activities in the Networks WG in modeling VLANs, VPNs, NAT, Frame
> Relay, etc.
>
> We discussed this NetConf thread at the DMTF Networks WG call
> yesterday
> - and want to offer our support and models. If there are things to
> change or add, we are certainly open to that discussion.
>
> Andrea
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:13 AM
> To: Faye Ly; Sharon Chisholm; netconf
> Subject: RE: NetConf Data Modeling Discussion
>
>
> Let me add my vote in support of starting this activity as soon as
> possible. I never agreed or even understood the 'protocol first'
> approach taken by NetConf. In my eyes NetConf will hold a real chance
> when I will see useful data models starting to be defined and used.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> (if I am to ramble negatively, SNMP started to fail when the big heads
> continued to over-refine the protocol instead of writing useful MIBs
> for operators to use. Bur certainly many people will not agree with
> me).
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Faye Ly
> > Sent: 04 February, 2004 8:33 PM
> > To: Sharon Chisholm; netconf
> > Subject: RE: Netconf Data Modeling Discussion
> >
> >
> > Sharon,
> >
> > I was not at the Minneapolis meeting but I think this is a
> great idea.
> >
> > It will not only help move forward the netconf but also provides a
> > sanity check.
> >
> > I would vote for yes for you to go ahead and start the new mailing
> > list.
> >
> > -faye
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]
> > On Behalf Of Sharon Chisholm
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 8:20 AM
> > To: netconf
> > Subject: Netconf Data Modeling Discussion
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I wasn't able to make it to the Minneapolis meeting, but my
> > understanding was there was discussion about setting up a separate
> > mailing list to discuss Netconf data modeling. I think this is an
> > important issue unto itself but there are also potential
> implications
> > on the base protocol work being done in this working groups that it
> > would be good to identify sooner rather than later.
> >
> > I haven't seen an announcement of a new mailing list yet. I've been
> > talking with our mailing list people and it looks like we
> could host
> > such a mailing list. Should I go ahead and get this list created?
> >
> > Sharon Chisholm
> > Portfolio Integration
> > Nortel Networks
> > Ottawa, Canada
> >
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to
> netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the
>
> > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
> >
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to
> netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the
>
> > word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
> >
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the
> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the
> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
>
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>