Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Outline
Problem Statement Relevant Inputs Content of a Management Considerations
document Format of a Management Considerations
document
Problem Statement
Looking at better ways to develop and review SNMP MIBs
Not enough consideration given to management considerations during protocol development
Mapping to protocols other then SNMP
Relevant Inputs
draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt defines requirements for the inclusion of Manageablity
Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the Routing Area
Mandatory Topics Control of Function and Policy Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB module Liveness Detection and Monitoring Verifying Correct Operation Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components Impact on Network Operation
Relevant Inputs
MIB Doctor Meeting @ IETF 65 idea that instead of getting non-experts to write MIBs
and then put lots of resources in reviewing them, it could make more sense to have working groups document knobs and buttons required to management their technology and have the experts write the MIBs
General industry trend towards defining management information in a format that can then be mapped into flavour of the month protocol solutions.
Content of a Management Considerations Document Example use cases
How to tell if things are running well/badly How to set-up How to modify (Section 3 of the Farrel drafts has some interesting input here)
Understanding of information to be manipulated List of things that need to be configured List of status that should be reported and/or changeable List of statistics that should be reported Understanding of how this relates to other parts of the system Definition of uniqueness (hint for index/keys)
What else?
Format for Management Considerations Document Management Protocol-neutral Plain text, instead of trying to figure out how to encode
UML in ASCII Data items can provide numeric and mnemonic values
and data type suggestions, but it should be acceptable to map these into something more appropriate for a particular protocol.
Well-written textual descriptions of the data items Similar to what is in Farrel, section X.2, but a bit more
detailed.
Discussion Points
Section within a technology specification or separate document? Inline makes protocol designers thinkWill the document become too large?
Does the management area still review this section like we did with MIBs?Will this sort of review be easier?
Backup
Current Method of working
Technology Working Group
New Technology
New Technology MIB
Management Area Expert Review to ensure correct syntax, etc
Publish SNMP MIB RFC
ProprietaryCLI
Other Protocols
Proposed Method of Working
Technology Working Group
New Technology
Management Considerations
Publish XSD RFC
ProprietaryCLI
Other Protocols
Management Area
New Technology MIB
New Technology XSD
Publish SNMP MIB RFC
