Re: CAPWAP BOF follow up: nmrg - CAPWAP

["James Kempf" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>]

Bert,

> The discussion came up because we were talking about "What does the IETF
> want WGs to do for configuring netowrk devices between now and the time
> that we will have a full fledged new protocol (XML-baed, e.g. netconf
work)."
> They then listed various things that are going on, and CAPWAP was one
> of them. The feeling is that if various devices keep doing CLI or whatever
> proprietary thing they do today is fine untill we have a NetConf result.
> They also feel that it will hurt if the IETF now goes down a path
> where various WGs start to develop all sort of new protocols to do
> network/device configuration. They felt that in that case it might be
> better to build on what we have (yep SNMP SETs), specifically in areas
> where such is currently being done (albeit with proprietary MIB modules).
>
>

Having seen this happen with service discovery, I couldn't agree more. Part
of the concern is that some of the configuration and control functions are
dynamic and there is some concern that SNMP might have a problem with that.
Also, I've heard there is some security problem with MIPs that have writable
variables, and so most vendors turn them off. That said, SNMP might be a
solution, and it was mentioned in a presentation at the BOF.

> Hope this helps/clarifies

Yes, thanx. Any advice you might have on what we should be saying to the
list would help. It seems like, despite my desire to detach from this
effort, I'm ending up its godfather. :-)

            jak