OPS Area NETCONF BOF Meeting Minutes IETF #56 March 17, 2003 Minutes by Glenn Waters and Andy Bierman Attendance: 259 Chairs ------ Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com> Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Review Material --------------- XMLCONF Configuration Protocol <draft-enns-xmlconf-spec-00.txt> Agenda ------ Agenda bashing : 5 minutes Opening Remarks : 10 minutes NETCONF Scope presentation : 15 minutes NETCONF Scope discussion : 15 minutes XMLCONF I-D presentation : 35 minutes XMLCONF I-D discussion : 40 minutes Next Steps : 30 minutes Minutes ------- Key: Q: question A: answer C: comment 1) Opening Remarks Randy Bush started the meeting by conducting a quick poll: Q: How many people here create tools for network management? A: about 60 people Q: How many people here manage networks? A: about 100 people Q: How many people have read the XMLCONF draft? A: about 150 people 2) NETCONF Scope presentation Andy Bierman presented slides on the focus and scope of the proposed WG. The scope is generally a protocol for configuration management which meets operator requirements as defined in the IAB NM Workshop on Network Management and other Internet Drafts. The scope does not include the selection or definition of a Data Definition Language or the definition of specific standard data models. See the slides for more detail on this presentation. 3) NETCONF Scope discussion The presentation was followed by an open microphone Q&A session. C: [Fred Baker] security issues not limited to knowing who the peer (IP address) is; need something carried in the XML. C: [Elliot Lear] need to address the auditing requirement still. C: [Perry Metzger] need to define the threat models, i.e.: what do you want to defend against and what you do not want to defend against. Q: [Eric Flieshman] what space is this work trying to fill in; is it replacing the SNMP work A: [Randy Bush] not an SNMP replacement - it is augmenting the configuration work Q: [Eric Flieshman] SNMP consumes lots of bandwidth; is the goal of this work to save bandwidth A: [Randy Bush] no Q: [Faye Ly] what kind of notification traffic is part of this work? Is it configuration type of notifications only? A: [Randy Bush and Andy Bierman] Not trying to replace SNMP. Focus on things that SNMP is not doing. Also focus on configuring networks not just devices. Q: [Faye Ly] how does this deal with a new box on the network? A: [Elliot Lear] initial security certificate exchange is outside the scope of the solution C: [Andy Bierman] explicit goal is to coexist with console port management C: [Weijing Chen] Operators want single interface to do the job (FCAPS) C: [Andy Bierman] A device can transport performance information using this protocol. C: [Dave Perkins] Notifications: config and notification together - this is good stuff; Q: [Christian Jacquenet] was COPS-PR considered? A: [Randy Bush] no - COPS-PR does not use a text encoding C: [Faye Ly] need to build in low bandwidth into the protocol design and need to build in robustness to the protocol C: [Randy Bush] yes; this is one of the requirements and there are more Q: [Johathon Rosenburg] can this handle software upgrades? A: [Phil Shafer] nothing prevents this but nothing is defined in the XMLCONF draft A: [Andy Bierman] need to consider whether the WG should look at this 4) XMLCONF I-D presentation Rob Enns gave a presentation on the XMLCONF draft. Some details on the operational model and protocol operations were explained. Refer to the slides for more details. 5) XMLCONF I-D discussion The presentation was followed by an open microphone Q&A session. C: Authorization model is not defined in the draft C: [Andy Bierman] SOAP decision should be looked at. Q: Does kill-session work on a locked session? A: [Rob Enns] Yes Q: [Arand] Are there two levels of error codes? A: [Andy Bierman] It not in the current draft, but it needs to be C: [Dave Perkins] In addition to the error codes if bad things happen through a "successful" configuration operation then the notifications should tell you about the problems. C: [Ben Black] want to store a large number of named configurations C: [Andy Bierman] part of the plan is to have that capability 6) Next steps The meeting concluded with a discussion on the next steps, such as formation of a WG. The group consensus is that a working group should be formed to pursue this work. Q: [Andy Bierman] do people in the room think the scope is defined correctly? A: [Randy Presuhn] need to define access control model; need to think about multi-system commit; naming pieces of configuration needs to be defined A: [Ron Bonica] should continue forward with the draft; need work item to define an SMI and a "MIB" or two; need to look at the security aspects Q: [Andy Bierman]: should the protocol and data model work be sequenced or done in parallel? A: Parallel Q: Data model - what interoperability do we have if there is no data model? A: [Andy Bierman] Need to do those later. Q: Do we need to consider multi-box transactions? Is this part of the protocol? Some want this other do not believe that this is a goal. A: [Eric] wants to template the network configuration; this is similar to "system wide" configuration; give thought to how schemas can be consistent if they are not defined as part of this proposed WG C: [Margaret Wasserman] We are trying to define enough to be useful and be an iterative improvement over what we have today Q: [Andy Bierman] poll: is there interest in doing this work: A: yes. - vast majority supported the work (about 240) - About 30 - 40 operators supported the work - Nobody objected to the work - About 60 - 100 people raised their hands that they would actively participate in the work - About 10 operators raised their hands that they would actively participate (review documents) in the |