Subject: Re: [Netconf] NETCONF Charter

From: Ashesh Mishra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:12:40 +0000

May I suggest adding to the charter a task to "Revisit the use-cases and architecture to ensure compatibility of NETCONF for future network technology ecosystems"?

NETCONF is a fairly mature solution and with evolving network architectures, there are more use-cases for it now than were originally envisioned for a network configuration protocol (streaming telemetry is just one such example). 

I am NOT suggesting a v2, but only to take a look at the needs for a modern network configuration protocol and if NETCONF can/should be updated to address them. 

Regards,
Ashesh 

-----Original Message-----
From: Netconf <[email-masked]> on behalf of Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, February 12, 2018 at 2:16 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Netconf] NETCONF Charter

    Dear WG,
    
    Mahesh and I have put together a proposal for a new charter for our
    working group.  This charter proposal is comparable to the charter
    that Lou and I recently put together for the NETMOD WG.  
    
    Our primary objective to this update is to have a charter that is
    sufficiently broad to not require frequent updates, and yet still
    constrains us to specific objectives.
    
    Note that the Milestones at the bottom detail the specific drafts
    the WG is working on and, therefore, we chose to not call out the
    individual drafts in the body of the charter itself.
    
    Please review and send any comments that you may have regarding it.
    
    Thanks,
    Kent and Mahesh

    ===== charter proposal =====
    
    Description of Working Group:
     
    The Network Configuration (NETCONF) working group is responsible for
    network management protocols, their transports and encodings, and
    defining data models necessary to support the protocols.  The NETCONF
    working group also defines mechanisms supporting the operational
    deployment of systems using the protocols.
     
    The NETCONF WG is responsible for:
     
       a) Maintaining the network management protocol NETCONF (RFC 6241).
          This effort entails periodically updating the NETCONF related
          specifications to address new requirements as they arise.
     
       b) Maintaining the network management protocol RESTCONF (RFC 8040).
          This effort entails periodically updating the RESTCONF related
          specifications to address new requirements as they arise.
     
       c) Defining transports and encodings used by the NETCONF and
          RESTCONF protocols.
     
       d) Defining data models that are related to network management
          protocols.  Specifically, data models enabling the configuration
          and/or monitoring of the NETCONF and RESTCONF servers themselves.
          Other examples include data models for configuring access
          controls or discovering server metadata.
     
       e) Defining mechanisms enabling devices to discover and establish
          secure connections to NETCONF and/or RESTCONF servers.
     
       The NETCONF working group consults with the NETMOD working group to
       ensure that new requirements are understood and can be met by the
       YANG data modeling language (RFC 7950) developed within that working
       group.

    Goals and Milestones:
     
      This section is updated automatically via the Milestone tracker
        - https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf/milestones/
     
      And therefore the specific list of drafts is not included here.

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:19:16 +0100

I think this is already covered under maintenance of the management
protocols.

/js

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

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 17:20:06 +0000

Hi Ashesh,

It does generally sound like "maintenance", though I imagine that it will more likely evolve organically over time rather than be an explicit top-to-bottom analysis.   

Of course, an I-D providing such an analysis would be welcomed and might even be something the WG would adopt (under the "maintenance" clause) and publish as Informational RFC.  

Kent

===== original message =====

/js

---

From: Ashesh Mishra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 20:15:57 +0000

I also associated “maintenance” with organic incremental improvements whereas what I am suggesting is that it’s perhaps already time for a top-down analysis of not just the protocol, but the use-cases for network management protocols that take a more holistic look across the network management slice rather than simply focus on configuration management. 

Ashesh

On Feb 13, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Kent Watsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Ashesh,

Kent

/js

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:25:46 +0100

Go ahead, write an I-D. I do not think there is something actionable
today that can be added to the charter until someone wrote an I-D and
we had a discussion and the WG developed an understanding about the
technical work that needs to be done. For something very long forward
looking, there is also the NMRG.

/js