Hi -
> From: "Andy Bierman"
> To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)"
> Cc: ;
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
...
> NMS developers need to spend too many resources on translating
> naming and other d
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:31:42PM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> But if we are at this phase I think creating a network elements
> abstraction layer and be able to configure/monitor any protocol and
> service at the unified way is one of the building blocks we should
> start with. And of course
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 09:22:10AM +0200, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
> Aha .. so you are saying that MIBs are not mandatory Very
> interesting. So I guess SSH to the routers and box by box cli
> provisioning is here to stay for a while I think :(
>
Robert,
you may want to take a closer look at
+1
--
David Harrington
ietf...@comcast.net
+1-603-828-1401
On 8/2/12 12:59 PM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda
>concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for
>management protocols.
>
>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda
> concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for
> management protocols.
>
>
> My personal take is that no one protocol, or one d
Hi Juergen,
Many thx for the great suggestion !
However perhaps you are much more knowledgeable in that area and could
recommend which model fit the best the requirement to standardize
configuration of any new protocol or protocol extension at least in the
space of routing and routing protoco
o: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: rob...@raszuk.net; ops...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Basic ietf process question ...
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon
