Re: [NGO] NETCONF-related sessions at IETF 70

[John Dickinson <jad@jadickinson.co.uk>]

On 26 Nov 2007, at 05:21, Phil Shafer wrote:

> "Sharon Chisholm" writes:
> > Either that or for more detailed discussion of the items in the  
> > updated
> > NETCONF charter.
>
> Another thought is to come up with a list of the five biggest
> impediments to NETCONF's complete domination of the configuration
> space.  Do we know the answers to questions like:
>
> - Why aren't/won't device folks shipping netconf implementations?
> - Why aren't/won't application writers moving to NETCONF?
> - Why isn't NETCONF becoming the answer to configuration problems?
> - What's stopping it?
> - Where's the chicken?
> - What's the egg?
> - What's the key to moving forward from here?
> - Where should we be concentrating our (precious and few) resources?
> - Will any of the new charter items be on this list?


I think that such a discussion would be very useful in getting the  
word out about NETCONF and helping people understand how it could be  
used.

There has, for example, been some discussion in the dnsop WG about  
developing a protocol for configuring and controlling nameservers (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/minutes?item=minutes69.html 
) and I am one of the authors of a draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arends-nscp-00.txt 
) that suggests using NETCONF.

The biggest issue for me in choosing NETCONF was and is to be sure I  
am using NETCONF appropriately and that it really is the correct  
solution to my problem. I am currently looking at such things as, what  
would be an appropriate data model, how to correctly use capabilities  
and how to engineer things that are not strictly configuration, such  
as control commands, monitoring and statistics gathering.

Thanks,
John

---
John Dickinson
jad@jadickinson.co.uk




--
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/>