Subject: [netmod] snmp configuration data model charter addition

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:36:44 +0200

Hi,

during the last WG meeting, it was proposed to add a data model for
the configuration of SNMP engines to the WG's charter. The starting
point is <draft-bjorklund-netmod-snmp-cfg-01> and the following
charter text addition (plus milestones) was proposed to cover this
work:

  5. Data model for configuring SNMP engines. The model must be
     compliant with the standard SNMPv3 MIB modules for configuring SNMP
     engines.

  Done      Submission of individual draft(s) of an SNMP config data model
  Aug 2011  Submit first working group draft of an SNMP config data model
  Nov 2011  Submit SNMP config data model to the IESG (proposed standard)

Please state your support or your concerns about adding this work to
our charter.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:38:44 -0700

On 07/28/2011 03:36 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> point is<draft-bjorklund-netmod-snmp-cfg-01>  and the following

I support this work and I will commit to reviewing the draft
(at least in WGLC, maybe before as well).

> /js

Andy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:59:16 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:36 PM
> Subject: [netmod] snmp configuration data model charter addition
...
>      compliant with the standard SNMPv3 MIB modules for configuring SNMP
...
> Please state your support or your concerns about adding this work to

What is "compliant" really supposed to mean in this context?

Randy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:56:14 +0200

> What is "compliant" really supposed to mean in this context?

Does s/compliant/consistent/ help?

/js

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:15:08 -0700

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 3:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [netmod] snmp configuration data model charter addition
>

Yes, though I hope common sense prevails in arguments about,
for example, the use of indexes to simulate query capabilities, or
maintaining OID "lexicographic" order in bulk responses or
providing a semantic equivalent to getNext, or how (whether?)
to map the semantics of vacmViewSpinLock.

Randy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 01:24:35 +0200

> to map the semantics of vacmViewSpinLock.

Consistent with "what is configurable", not necessarily consistent
with the SNMP mechanics of configuring it. If you have better and more
precise wording for the charter text, please share it.

/js

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:28:15 -0400

> Please state your support or your concerns about adding this work to

I support this addition.

Lada

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:46:46 -0700

Hi -

> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:24 PM

> precise wording for the charter text, please share it.

Perhaps this is what is meant?
   5. Data model for configuring SNMP engines. The model must be
       capable of representing all SNMP engine configurations possible
       with the standard SNMPv3 MIB modules.

Randy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:26:17 +0200

>        with the standard SNMPv3 MIB modules.

Yes, this might be a better wording.

/js

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:33:34 -0400 (EDT)

>        with the standard SNMPv3 MIB modules.

This is not exactly what the current document tries to do.  It is
capabale of representing all "usable" configurations, but for example,
the MIBs allow an snmpTargetParamsEntry with:

  snmpTargetParamsMPModel = 0
  snmpTargetParamsSecurityModel = 3

but this is not possible in the YANG model.

Here's another example: (copy&pasting from a comment...)

# In some cases, the YANG model imposes stricter constraints on valid
# configurations than the corresponding MIB model.  For example, the
# leaf "/snmp/community/tag" is a leafref, which means that in a valid
# configuration, it MUST refer to an existing target tag, as defined in
# ^RFC6020^.  There is no such constraint the MIBs.

/martin

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 14:53:16 +0200

> # ^RFC6020^.  There is no such constraint the MIBs.

What if we add "meaningful"?

   5. Data model for configuring SNMP engines. The model must be
      capable of representing all meaningful SNMP engine
      configurations possible with the standard SNMPv3 MIB modules.

/js

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 09:08:59 -0400 (EDT)

>       configurations possible with the standard SNMPv3 MIB modules.

This works for me.

/martin