Report from the IAB Workshop on the Next Era of Network Management Operations (NEMOPS)
draft-iab-nemops-workshop-report-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D) that has been submitted to the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) stream.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Wes Hardaker , Dhruv Dhody | ||
| Last updated | 2025-01-29 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Architecture Board (IAB) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | IAB state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| IAB shepherd | (None) |
draft-iab-nemops-workshop-report-00
Network Working Group W. Hardaker
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational D. Dhody
Expires: 2 August 2025 29 January 2025
Report from the IAB Workshop on the Next Era of Network Management
Operations (NEMOPS)
draft-iab-nemops-workshop-report-00
Abstract
The "Next Era of Network Management Operations (NEMOPS)" workshop was
convened by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) on December 3-5,
2024 as a three-day online meeting. It builds on a previous 2002
workshop, the outcome of which was documented in RFC 3535 identifying
14 operator requirements for consideration in future network
management protocol design and related data models, along with some
recommendations for the IETF. Much has changed in the Internet’s
operation and technological foundations since then. The NEMOPS
workshop reviewed the past outcomes and identified any operational
barriers that prevented these technologies from being widely
implemented. It sketched new requirements for future network
management operations collaboratively with the industry, network
operators and protocol engineers, and developed a suggested action
plan and recommendations for the IETF.
Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
workshop. The views and positions documented in this report were
expressed during the workshop by participants and do not necessarily
reflect IAB's views and positions.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://intarchboard.github.io/draft-iab-nemops-workshop-report/
draft-iab-nemops-workshop-report.html. Status information for this
document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-
nemops-workshop-report/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-iab-nemops-workshop-report.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 2 August 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. About this workshop report content . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Outreach and Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Workshop Scope and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Session I: Past (lookback, analysis) . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Lessons to be Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Session II: Present (identified problems &
requirements) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Operator Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3. Session III: Future (possible solutions, recommendations
and next steps) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.1. Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4. Key Takeaways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
3.4.1. Ecosystem conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.2. Protocol conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4.3. Modeling conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.4. Standardization conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.5. Additional work needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Insights from Operator Feedback . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.1. General Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
A.2. Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix B. Key Recommendations from Operator Feedback . . . . . 19
Appendix C. Position Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix D. Workshop Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix E. Workshop Program Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
IAB Members at the Time of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
The IAB organized a workshop in 2002 to establish a dialog between
network operators and protocol developers, and to guide IETF when
working on network management protocols. The outcome of that
workshop was documented in the "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Management Workshop" [RFC3535] which identified 14 operator
requirements for consideration in future network management protocol
design and related data models, along with some recommendations for
the IETF.
Those requirements were instrumental in developing first the NETCONF
protocol (in the NETCONF Working Group) [RFC6241], the associated
YANG data modeling language (in the NETMOD Working Group) [RFC7950],
RESTCONF [RFC8040], and most recently CORECONF [I-D.ietf-core-comi].
The recent NEMOPS IAB workshop focussed on the following key topics:
* Review the outcomes and results of the 2002 workshop (current
deployments, state of the art) and identify any operational
barriers that prevent these technologies from being widely
implemented (limitations, hurdles).
* Sketch new requirements for future network management operations
in a collaborative manner with the industry, network operators,
and protocol engineers.
* Develop a plan of action and recommendations for the IETF.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
1.1. About this workshop report content
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) holds occasional workshops
designed to consider long-term issues and strategies for the
Internet, and to suggest future directions for the Internet
architecture. This long-term planning function of the IAB is
complementary to the ongoing engineering efforts performed by working
groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
This document is a report on the proceedings of the workshop. The
views and positions documented in this report are expressed during
the workshop by participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB's
views and positions.
Furthermore, the content of the report comes from presentations given
by workshop participants and notes taken during the discussions,
without interpretation or validation. Thus, the content of this
report follows the flow and dialogue of the workshop but does not
necessarily attempt to capture a consensus, unless stated otherwise.
2. Outreach and Survey
There has been a noticeable decline in the direct participation of
network operators in the IETF and its associated discussions on
network management protocols and operations. Many operators
prioritize operational conferences over standards development
organizations (SDOs), such as RIPE, NANOG, APRICOT, LACNIC, AutoConn,
etc.
To address this, the IAB workshop's Program Committee (PC) planned
outreach initiatives to foster discussions and gather interest by
engaging with operators at these venues and conducting information/
requirement-gathering sessions. Participants were encouraged to
submit 'position papers' or 'expressions of interest' to join the
workshop. Additionally, a survey [SURVEY] was conducted to collect
valuable insights to inform the workshop.
The PC continues to engage with network operators after the workshop
to facilitate information sharing and gather their feedback, helping
to shape the next steps and outcomes of the workshop.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
3. Workshop Scope and Discussion
The workshop was organized across three days with all-group
discussion slots, one per day. The following topic areas were
identified and the program committee organized paper submissions into
three main themes for each of the three discussion slots. During
each discussion, those papers were presented sequentially with open
discussion held at the end of each day. On the last day, a
discussion on the key takeaways from the workshop and possible next
steps took place.
3.1. Session I: Past (lookback, analysis)
The first day of the workshop focused on reflecting on the past by
reviewing the evolution of network management since the 2002
workshop, analyzing both the successes and the challenges encountered
along the way. The presentations covered a range of topics,
including reflections on the history of network management, lessons
learned from widely used tools, practices in constrained networks,
and the need to reconsider how network management models and
protocols are standardized within the IETF.
3.1.1. Reflections
The workshop began by reflecting on the IAB’s role in shaping the
evolution of network management away from CLI/SNMP/MIB, focusing on
the context and key outcomes of the previous workshop, an assessment
of the current state, and an acknowledgement of some regrets (such as
XML as the data representation format). [SCHONWALDER] emphasized the
need to shift the focus from device-level configuration to network
and service-level configuration. Key properties highlighted for
effective network and service configurations included being
Composable (assembled out of modular configurations), Declarative
(define state while systems determine themselves how to move to it),
Reproducible (reliably and consistently recreated), and Verifiable
(tools to verify properties).
An operator’s perspective highlighted that the recommendations of
[RFC3535] (which led to the development of YANG and NETCONF) have
been successful in addressing device configuration. In certain
areas, the advancements in semantics and protocols for streaming
telemetry have even surpassed the original scope of [RFC3535].
[LARSSON] cautioned against making changes that could disrupt the
ecosystem. The presentation emphasized the need to prioritize
service modeling in the IETF and addressed the challenges of mapping
to the Business Support Systems (BSS) domain. It also stressed the
importance of including the operational state in service models to
enable closed-loop automation for end-to-end (E2E) services.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
Revisiting [RFC8309], which asserts that the operational state of a
service is not part of a customer service model but can be achieved
through extensions, was suggested. Additionally, the lack of open-
source NMS implementations, tools, and device model implementations
was identified as a significant barrier to advancing standardization
efforts. The IETF could play a key role in fostering and enabling
collaborations to address these challenges including an off-box
translation tool of the IETF device model to vendor proprietary
models.
3.1.2. Lessons to be Learned
[HARDAKER] emphasized that the success of Net-SNMP [NET-SNMP] was
driven by empowering users through simplicity. He stressed that the
focus should remain on ensuring ease of use and adaptability of the
protocols. Emphasis was placed on the two distinct audiences for
standardized network management protocols: toolkit vendors and system
operators. Their requirements for protocol simplicity differ, and it
is essential to address the needs of both to ensure success.
[BORMANN] presented an overview of the CORECONF architecture,
showcasing how model-driven network management techniques can be
applied to manage IoT devices (which is different from other network
management scenarios), with a focus on the unique characteristics of
constrained nodes. Some participants noted that the binary encoding
of CBOR has applications that extend beyond the IoT networks.
Drawing from the experience of OpenConfig [OPENCONFIG], [SHAKIR]
emphasized that protocol definition and data models cannot be done in
isolation. It must integrate lessons learned from implementation and
large-scale deployment. He highlighted the importance of enabling
quick iterations, shipping rapidly, embracing open-source, readily
available tools, adopting systems thinking driven by business
outcomes, and reusing existing technologies rather than developing
solutions exclusively for operator network management. A call was
made for IETF to rethink the approach to standardize data models and
the associated network management protocols.
3.1.3. Discussion
The open discussion highlighted the divergence between vendor
implementations of YANG models and what is accessible via it,
particularly when compared to CLI. Questions about how to implement
the fast iterations and rapid changes characteristic within the IETF
standards process, particularly in comparison to the approach used by
OpenConfig. Common challenges identified included lack of tooling,
performance issues at scale, the steep learning curve for network
management protocols/models/tools, initial difficulty in moving away
from CLI, and the backward compatibility of models (versioning).
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
Some participants suggested that the IETF should focus on system-
level APIs that address specific problems. Additionally, the lack of
simple tools for smaller networks operating under tight timelines and
budgets was emphasized. A key question raised was whether the
proliferation of protocols and languages complicates adoption, and if
converging on a single approach would improve adoption. The
existence of multiple schemas and protocols beyond NETCONF, such as
BMP and IPFIX, to address network management challenges beyond
configuration is an established reality. What is required is a
mechanism to interconnect and harmonize these schemas to provide a
cohesive and comprehensive understanding of the data.
3.2. Session II: Present (identified problems & requirements)
The second day of the workshop concentrated on challenges and
emerging requirements for future network management operations. The
presentation emphasized the importance of validation, observability,
automation, and the need for agile, incremental development of both
network models and management protocols. A compilation of new
requirements is being maintained in
[I-D.boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later]. The final presentation
of the day provided a summary of the survey results and operator
feedback gathered from outreach events.
3.2.1. Operator Feedback
[KELLER] shared Deutsche Telekom’s perspective, emphasizing that
while YANG models perform well for provisioning, they currently fall
short in providing the operational stability required for validation.
Achieving fully closed-loop automated and autonomous networking will
require a greater focus on observability, particularly through
advancements in streaming telemetry with "on-change".
[JIMENEZ] discussed the challenges associated with the SDN Transport
Automation Platform, including observability and analytics
requirements, issues with data streaming, scalability, diverse models
in heterogeneous multi-vendor environments, and mechanisms to secure
the network management protocols. The presentation also emphasized
how advancements in AI and machine learning, along with the potential
adaptation of protocols designed for constrained environments, could
drive the next evolution in network management.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
Using YANG-Push as an example, [GRAF] highlights how standards
development often fails to align with the needs of network operators,
the constraints of network vendors, and the integration requirements.
Most critically, it lacks an agile, incremental development process.
The presentation advocated for adopting an iterative approach to
standards development, focusing on delivering minimal viable products
as part of the process.
[CONTRERAS] emphasized reassessing deployment assumptions and
incorporating updated operator requirements. The authors are
addressing these aspects through
[I-D.boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later], leveraging feedback and
discussions from the workshop. Some key requirements highlighted
were:
* Network softwarization can only happen with a strong, committed
standardization effort, complemented by active involvement in
opensource projects that facilitate access to code.
* Need to rationalize the DM space and avoid redundant efforts.
Unlike service and network models, IETF-defined device models are
not widely implemented.
* Define a reference approach/process for service exposure discovery
(APIs discovery).
* Outlines set of recommendations for core/key features, along with
appropriate justifications, will help foster more implementations
that meet operators’ needs.
* Need for a reference specification to translate YANG-based data
into the knowledge graph (KG).
* Consider approaches for YANG models to scale.
* Consider programmatic approaches to ensure lossless mappings
between service/network/device data models.
* Consider approaches to ensure reuse/consistent data structure
across various NM segments.
* Some networks have specific network management requirements such
as the need for asynchronous operations or constraints on data
compactness.
* Necessity to handle the heterogeneity of data, configuration, and
network management/requirements. Resolving such issues could draw
on insights from parallel technical fields such as knowledge
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
engineering practices and concepts associated with Linked Data in
the Semantic Web, areas where it is common to manage problems of
heterogeneity and data reconciliation across various application
domains.
* Consider having YANG as part of the protocol specification/change
where possible, or have the YANG document progress in parallel.
* Need to ease the integration of low-level/network-oriented
solutions with native "IT tooling"
* Ease exposure of libraries and host tools (e.g., yangkit) to ease
integration.
* Focus on tooling is needed, especially on the client side.
* Create an eco-system where data and networking engineers can
collaborate.
* The distinct approaches followed in both the compute and the
network environments to define suitable mechanisms for enabling an
efficient interplay, while highly automating the overall service
delivery procedure.
* The target application/applicability of a network management
approach should be documented.
* Readily available API specifications could be generalized from
YANG modules for fast development, prototyping, and validation.
3.2.2. Survey
As outlined in Section 2, the workshop program committee organized
outreach initiatives to gather direct feedback and conducted a
survey. [SURVEY-INSIGHTS] provided an overview of the respondents’
backgrounds, as well as insights into the most widely used tools,
protocols, and APIs for configuration, monitoring, and other network
operations. Notably, the survey revealed that Ansible and CLI are
the most popular configuration tools, NetConf is the preferred
configuration protocol, and Prometheus and SNMP are widely used for
monitoring. The survey also captured feedback on network automation
and streaming telemetry. Issues and future requirements such as
scalability, performance, the need for easier mapping of various
models, tooling, management of legacy devices, collaboration with
open-source, and vendor-specific issues were highlighted.
Additionally, valuable insights from direct operator feedback were
also presented (see Appendix A).
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
3.2.3. Discussion
The open discussion featured feedback from implementers, highlighting
the difficulty in moving to YANG and mapping to vendor
implementations and how divergence in the implementations creates
complexity and necessitates workarounds. It is necessary to support
standard models alongside native vendor models, which adds complexity
and leads to confusion. Challenges were highlighted in mapping
standard models to internal device models and legacy devices, with
some cases where mapping is not feasible at all (device-specific
knobs). The conversation also emphasized the importance of
developing open-source reference implementations, compliance and
interoperability testing for vendors, and better quality of vendor
implementation and documentation. The implementation and support of
multiple models (IETF, OpenConfig, and native) is an unavoidable
reality in network management. Additionally, since the services
offered by operators vary significantly, reaching a consensus on a
common service model within the IETF can be a challenging task. It
was also noted that the IETF should expedite the publication of
standards as well as consider gating them with multiple interoperable
implementations.
3.3. Session III: Future (possible solutions, recommendations and next
steps)
The final day of the workshop centred on exploring potential future
solutions and identifying key takeaways, recommendations, and next
steps. Initial presentations covered topics such as the use of the
Knowledge Graph Framework and concrete suggestions for future
directions. To conclude the workshop, the chairs worked to summarize
the key takeaways (see Section 3.4) that garnered consensus among the
participants.
3.3.1. Future Directions
[CLAISE] highlighted the challenges of integrating data models across
different silos, protocols, and data structures, emphasizing the need
for a machine-readable approach to expose semantics. Additionally,
the related tools being developed and showcased in the Hackathon,
along with the various challenges in mapping across protocols and
models, were discussed. A potential solution was proposed using a
knowledge graph based on the Semantic Web Stack, along with the need
to define a basic ontology for the networking domain in an iterative
manner (outside of RFCs). [WATSEN] recommends prioritizing the
following areas and made four recommendations: (1) RESTCONF+JSON
(including YANG-Push Lite) as a single protocol beyond network
management, (2) Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
model, (3) Data Model Adapters (off-box so that common standard
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
models can be developed in parallel to the required device "native"
models), and (4) Device Protocol Adapters (with RESTCONF-like NBI for
a common shared-by-all repository). [WILTON] recommends reducing
unnecessary complexity, delivering timely solutions, fostering open
collaboration between vendors and operators, prioritizing simplicity,
and converging to a single model/protocol (though that is hard to
do). Practical suggestions include focusing on YANG-Push Lite,
introducing YANG 2.0 through incremental updates, developing
NETCONFv2, and managing IETF YANG models as code or APIs rather than
embedding them within RFCs.
3.3.2. Discussion
The open discussion delved into the absence of NMDA in OpenConfig and
if it is needed and its complexity, the history of introducing gNMI
in the IETF (whether RESTCONF offer any advantage over it), and the
challenges of building consensus on the common ground takes time
(without shortcutting the consensus building process) and converging
on a single protocol (and it is practical). Emphasize off-box
adapters, allowing vendors to continue innovating and developing
native models rapidly. Meanwhile, standard model mapping to native
models can be maintained in a common repository, enabling the
community to assess coverage and alignment. Further, the discussion
explored alternative approaches to YANG models within the IETF
outside of RFCs, such as leveraging GitHub to accelerate the process
(along with the challenges associated with it), living documents
within the WG charter, and supporting academia to take up the open
source efforts such as device adapters. The discussion emphasized
the need for process experimentation, particularly at the working
group or area level where we could have consensus among the YANG/OPS
community on how we iterate in WGs without IETF/RFC-wide changes but
making sure the operators are involved in the process. Is YANG
applicable beyond network management? Can applications adopt YANG as
a modelling language to define their services?
Some topics absent from the workshop discussions included tooling
(what is currently missing) and strategies to support tool
development (who pays, who develops, who maintains). The primary
focus of the discussion was on YANG and NETCONF/RESTCONF, while
several other network management protocols and techniques currently
used received little attention during the workshop. The discussion
on future directions prioritized improving existing solutions rather
than introducing entirely new ones (such as enabling intelligence in
network management). Some key recommendations made by operators
during outreach Section 2 are listed at Appendix B.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
3.4. Key Takeaways
At the end of the third day, the discussion turned to key takeaways
that have high-level consensus which were live edited during the last
discussion of the workshop. In the process of discussion, there were
some realizations where additional work was also needed.
[Note at this point, these are cut and pasted from the slides and not
properly edited/cleaned/moved around]
3.4.1. Ecosystem conclusions
These takeaways try to document the general thinking of the
participants with respect to the entire Network Management ecosystem
as it exists today.
1. The current network management protocols, models and tools still
fail the ‘ease of use’ requirement. Participants noted that the
tools almost matter more than the protocols.
2. The overall ecosystem is still fragmented for both protocols and
data models. SNMP is still used extensively for monitoring, and
the CLI is still heavily relied on in many networks. Popular
protocols include SNMP, CLI, NETCONF, RESTCONF, gNMI, etc.
3. Documentation about the architecture and usage of the network
management ecosystem is lacking. More work is needed to create
general architecture documentation, deployment guides, tutorials,
training material, and getting started guides.
4. Transitioning between network management frameworks is
challenging, just like it is for transitioning between other
protocols like IPv4 to IPv6.
5. Model-driven network management is generally a success where it
is implemented and possible to use.
6. More easily usable network management tools for the operators are
needed. The lack of open-source tools is seen as a barrier to
adoption. Tools need good use cases, example flows and better
analysis of when and how they work and have been successful.
3.4.2. Protocol conclusions
1. Netconf and YANG are not used much for monitoring tasks.
2. Netconf and YANG do not have full coverage on many devices.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
3. Polling-based solutions are still frequently deployed.
4. Full coverage of NetConf support on devices does not exist today.
5. Polling-based solutions are still frequently deployed. Push-
based solutions are often desired but are not yet widely
available.
6. False: Netconf for configuration has been successful in some
larger-scale deployment
1. Let’s discuss this further on the list
2. Service config?
7. False: Full device control and configuration frequently requires
CLI and screen scraping
3.4.3. Modeling conclusions
1. Some YANG models can become too complex, though not as a fault of
the language.
2. Multi-vendor compatibility support is required.
3. Even vendor-specific features, not just standardized protocol
features, need to be exposed through network management protocols
for a network management ecosystem to be viable.
4. Greater support for service-level modeling is needed. Device
level modeling can be a building block to achieve a sufficient
service-level model but is not a complete solution by itself.
5. Network configuration needs to be verifiable to ensure any
potential changes can be accepted by devices. Model translation
adapters (likely performed on the management station not the end
device) may be the best path forward to simultaneously achieve
this and a goal of supporting one configuration set across a
diversity of devices with different internal models.
6. Full coverage of YANG models on all devices does not exist today.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
3.4.4. Standardization conclusions
1. A methodology of rapid model development procedures is needed to
ensure model deployment can keep pace with new feature
deployment. We need a solution that significantly increases the
speed and predictable timeline for developing and publishing
models within the IETF. New approaches and methods to make
models live outside of published RFCs should be explored. An
experiment should be started to test a new rapid development
approach.
2. Protocol and model complexity should be reduced to keep additions
and changes to a minimal set of agreed-upon core features.
3. More standardization focus is needed on the scalability of the
different roles of network management: monitoring, configuration,
notifications.
4. Enhancements to network management protocols and models need to
be backed by real-world operator use cases and expected adoption
by vendors. Vendors and operators will need to work together to
ensure these goals are appropriately met.
3.4.5. Additional work needed
Here we list the things that the group realized needed significantly
more attention in order to come to a conclusion.
4. Informative References
[BLESS] Bless, R., "An Invariant for Future Resilient Network
Management Operations", November 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-an-
invariant-for-future-resilient-network-management-
operations-00.pdf>.
[BORMANN] Bormann, C., "CORECONF: Managing IoT Devices with YANG
Models", November 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/
slides-nemopsws-paper-coreconf-managing-iot-devices-with-
yang-models-00.pdf>.
[CLAISE] Claise, B., Graf, T., Keller, H., Voyer, D., Lucente, P.,
Lopez, D., Martinez-Casanueva, I., Peters, B., Fasano, P.,
Ran, P., Cheng, W., and M. Mackey, "Knowledge Graph
Framework for Network Operations", November 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
knowledge-graph-framework-for-network-operations-00.pdf>.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
[CONTRERAS]
Boucadair, M., Contreras, L. M., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
Graf, T., Rahman, R., and L. Tailhardat, "RFC 3535, 20
Years Later: An Update of Operators Requirements on
Network Management Protocols and Modelling", October 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
rfc3535-years-later-an-update-of-operators-requirements-
on-network-management-protocols-and-modelling-00.pdf>.
[ECKERT] Eckert, T. and M. Richardson, "Resilient Remote
Manageability of Wide-Area Network Infrastructures",
November 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-
nemopsws-paper-resilient-remote-managability-of-wide-area-
network-infrastructures-00.pdf>.
[FOROUGHI] Foroughi, P. and L. Ciavaglia, "Projecting Data Mesh to
Model-driven Telemetry: A Path to Data Ecosystem’s
Management Operations", November 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
projecting-data-mesh-to-model-driven-telemetry-a-path-to-
data-ecosystems-management-operations-00.pdf>.
[GIRALT] Contreras, L. M., Schott, R., Randriamasy, S., Yang, R.,
and J. Ros-Giralt, "Towards a Unified Compute and
Communication Infrastructure for Application and Network
Management", November 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/
slides-nemopsws-paper-towards-a-unified-compute-and-
communication-infrastructure-for-application-and-network-
management-00.pdf>.
[GRAF] Graf, T., Keller, H., Voyer, D., Lucente, P., Claise, B.,
Wilton, R., Huang-Feng, A., and P. Francois, "Agile
Incremental Driven Development for Network Management",
November 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-
nemopsws-paper-agile-incremental-driven-development-for-
network-management-01.pdf>.
[GUDI] Gudi, M., Pelov, A., Toutain, L., and J. Bonnin, "Evolving
Network Management Architecture: Integrating CORECONF with
NETCONF for Efficient Telemetry and Management", November
2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
evolving-network-management-architecture-integrating-
coreconf-with-netconf-for-efficient-telemetry-and-
management-00.pdf>.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
[HARDAKER] Hardaker, W., "Lessons Learned from 30 Years of Net-SNMP",
November 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-
nemopsws-paper-lessons-learned-from-30-years-of-net-snmp-
00.pdf>.
[I-D.boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later]
Boucadair, M., Contreras, L. M., de Dios, O. G., Graf, T.,
Rahman, R., and L. Tailhardat, "RFC 3535, 20 Years Later:
An Update of Operators Requirements on Network Management
Protocols and Modelling", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-06, 25
November 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-06>.
[I-D.ietf-core-comi]
Veillette, M., Van der Stok, P., Pelov, A., Bierman, A.,
and C. Bormann, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-19,
3 November 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-core-comi-19>.
[JIMENEZ] Jiménez, J., "Managing IoT Devices with LwM2M", November
2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
managing-iot-devices-with-lwmm-00.pdf>.
[KELLER] Warnke, N., Geib, R., Horneffer, M., and H. Keller,
"NEMOPS: RFC3535 and the forgotten word — Or Provisioning
is only a subset of Network Management", November 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-nemops-
rfc3535-and-the-forgotten-word-00.pdf>.
[LARSSON] Larsson, K., Lambrechts, K., and I. Farrer, "RFC3535, 20
Years Later from an Operator's Perspective (Deutsche
Telekom)", November 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/
slides-nemopsws-paper-rfc3535-years-later-from-an-
operators-perspective-deutsche-telekom-00.pdf>.
[MARTINEZ] Martinez-Casanueva, I., "IAB NEMOPS Position Paper -
Telefonica", November 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/
slides-nemopsws-paper-iab-nemops-position-paper-
telefonica-00.pdf>.
[NET-SNMP] "Net-SNMP", n.d., <http://www.net-snmp.org/>.
[OPENCONFIG]
"OpenConfig", n.d., <https://www.openconfig.net/>.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
[RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Management Workshop", RFC 3535, DOI 10.17487/RFC3535, May
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3535>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.
[RFC8309] Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
Explained", RFC 8309, DOI 10.17487/RFC8309, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8309>.
[SCHARF] Scharf, M., "Network Management Challenges for IP-based
Cyber-Physical Networks", November 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
network-management-challenges-for-ip-based-cyber-physical-
networks-00.pdf>.
[SCHONWALDER]
Schönwälder, J., "Composable, Declarative, Reproducible,
Verifiable Network and Service Configurations", November
2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
composable-declarative-reproducible-verifiable-network-
and-service-configurations-00.pdf>.
[SHAKIR] Shakir, R., "Rethinking Standardisation of Network
Management", September 2024, <https://www.ietf.org/slides/
slides-nemopsws-paper-rethinking-standardisation-of-
network-management-00.pdf>.
[SURVEY] "Next Era of Network Management Operations (NEMOPS)
workshop survey", October 2024,
<https://ietf.iad1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/
SV_9vQxBRiZqDntarc>.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
[SURVEY-INSIGHTS]
"Insights from Operator Survey & Outreach", December 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2024-
nemopsws-02/materials/slides-interim-2024-nemopsws-02-
sessa-6-insights-from-operator-outreach-survey-03.pdf>.
[WATSEN] Watsen, K., "Four Thoughts for How to Improve Network
Management for Operators", November 2024,
<https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-nemops-
position-paper-kent-watsen-00.pdf>.
[WILTON] Wilton, R. and N. Corran, "Device Network Management -
Current Status, and Future Direction", November 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-nemopsws-paper-
device-network-management-current-status-and-future-
direction/>.
Appendix A. Insights from Operator Feedback
[TODO: Check if this is useful in the RFC or should it be removed]
A.1. General Insights
1. In network deployments, operations are typically at the bottom of
the ladder. It's the most squeezed for time and resources.
Network engineers are not typically seasoned developers. The
development of needed in-house tools often takes years to
develop. There is a need for tools that are easy to use and just
work.
2. Vast majority of smaller operators use CLI and open source to
manage their networks.
3. There is debate fatigue. The protocol/model debate is a
recurring conversation. The problem isn’t going away.
4. It was suggested that other domains (e.g., K8N/automation) are
years ahead of the current network engineering stack.
5. Support for multiple friendly, stable and feature rich libraries
for programming languages is needed. Many DevOps routines use
shell scripts, others use a high-level programming language. In
any case, on the client side, multiple programming languages are
used.
6. Screen scraping is both necessary and evil. This most often
occurs when interacting with a device having only a CLI.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
7. It was noted that there could be an outreach to Academia to
establish programs to teach lessons using modern management
stacks, and then a new generation of engineers could be helping
to improve tooling and automation, with university (and/or IETF)
hackathons.
A.2. Data Models
1. In some network deployments, the focus is solely on service-level
models, such that device-level protocols and device-level models
are unimportant. This assumes the existence of a device
adaptation layer to transcode service-level models to device-
level models and conform to the device-specific protocol.
2. There is a need for solutions to not hide vendor-specific knobs.
Currently, vendors compete by differentiating their offerings in
unique ways. The reason why an Operator may choose a particular
vendor is because of its differentiating features. Whilst
standard models enable conformance, they must not hide the
vendor-specific knobs. YANG deviations are a partial solution to
not hiding vendor knobs.
3. It was emphasized that streaming telemetry requires picking a
model and sticking with it. It is quite a commitment and the
current environment makes the decision harder.
4. It was noted that IETF's focus should be on defining abstract/
service-level data models since it is the only thing the
community may ever agree on.
5. There was a point about navigating non-device-specific models
being difficult. If understood correctly, the Network Engineer
knows the CLI command but has trouble grepping for it in YANG
modules defined by SDOs.
6. There was a wish that IETF and OpenConfig models would merge.
Appendix B. Key Recommendations from Operator Feedback
Various recommendations were made by the operators during the
outreach events. The key ones presented during the workshop were
(there were lot more collected):
* Everyone: Continue to focus on model-driven management as a means
to achieve automation.
* SDOs: Re-introduce “running code” as part of the specification
verification process.
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
* Operators: Be actively involved with the “running code” efforts.
* IETF: Recommend a solution stack for common use cases.
* Ambassadors: Evangelize the recommended solution stack for common
cases.
* Vendors: Support the recommended approach to solution stack for
common cases.
Appendix C. Position Papers
20 position papers were submitted to the workshop call for papers.
All papers are available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/nemopsws/materials/
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/nemopsws/materials/).
This is the list of all papers:
* J Schönwälder: Composable, Declarative, Reproducible, Verifiable
Network and Service Configurations [SCHONWALDER]
* K. Larsson, K. Lambrechts, and I. Farrer: RFC3535, 20 Years
Later from an Operator’s Perspective (Deutsche Telekom) [LARSSON]
* W. Hardaker: Lessons Learned from 30 Years of Net-SNMP [HARDAKER]
* C. Bormann: CORECONF: Managing IoT Devices with YANG Models
[BORMANN]
* R. Shakir: Rethinking Standardisation of Network Management
[SHAKIR]
* N. Warnke, R. Geib, M. Horneffer, and H. Keller: NEMOPS:
RFC3535 and the forgotten word — Or Provisioning is only a subset
of Network Management [KELLER]
* J. Jiménez, S. Mansfield, R. Rodriguez A., M. Pesonen, V.
Torvinen, and J. Karvonen: Evolving Challenges and Solutions in
Network Management [JIMENEZ]
* M. Boucadair, L. M. Contreras, O. Gonzalez de Dios, T. Graf,
R. Rahman, and L. Tailhardat: RFC 3535, 20 Years Later: An
Update of Operators Requirements on Network Management Protocols
and Modelling [CONTRERAS]
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
* T. Graf, H. Keller, D. Voyer, P. Lucente, B. Claise, R.
Wilton, A. Huang-Feng, and P. Francois: Agile Incremental Driven
Development for Network Management [GRAF]
* B. Claise, T. Graf, H. Keller, D. Voyer, P. Lucente, D.
Lopez, I. D. Martinez-Casanueva, B. Peters, P. Fasano, P.
Ran, W. Cheng, and M. Mackey: Knowledge Graph Framework for
Network Operations [CLAISE]
* K. Watsen: Four Thoughts for How to Improve Network Management
for Operators [WATSEN]
* R. Wilton and N. Corran: Device Network Management: Current
Status and Future Direction [WILTON]
* M. Gudi, A. Pelov, L. Toutain, and J.-M. Bonnin: Evolving
Network Management Architecture: Integrating CORECONF with NETCONF
for Efficient Telemetry and Management [GUDI]
* P. Foroughi and L. Ciavaglia: Projecting Data Mesh to Model-
driven Telemetry: A Path to Data Ecosystem’s Management Operations
[FOROUGHI]
* I. D. Martinez-Casanueva: IAB NEMOPS Position Paper - Telefonica
[MARTINEZ]
* J. Jiménez: Managing IoT Devices with LwM2M [JIMENEZ]
* L. M. Contreras, R. Schott, S. Randriamasy, R. Yang, and J.
Ros-Giralt: Towards a Unified Compute and Communication
Infrastructure for Application and Network Management [GIRALT]
* T. Eckert and M. Richardson: Resilient Remote Manageability of
Wide-Area Network Infrastructures [ECKERT]
* R. Bless: An Invariant for Future Resilient Network Management
Operations [BLESS]
* M. Scharf: Network Management Challenges for IP-based Cyber-
Physical Networks [SCHARF]
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft NEMOPS Workshop Report January 2025
Appendix D. Workshop Participants
The workshop participants were Alex Huang, Alexander Clemm, Alexander
PELOV, Benoit Claise, Boris Khasanov, Brad Peters (nbn), Carsten
Bormann, Chongfeng Xie, Cindy Morgan, Dan Voyer, Darren Loher, Dean
Bogdanovic, Dean Bogdanović, Dhruv Dhody, Diego Lopez, Ebben Aries,
Frank (Chong Feng), Holger Keller, Ian Farrer, Jaime Jimenez, James
Cumming, Janne Karvonen, Jason Sterne, Jiaming Ye, Jinming Li, John
Carson, Julien Maisonneuve, Jürgen Schönwälder, Kent Watsen, Kris
Lambrechts, Kristian Larsson, Laurent Ciavaglia, Laurent Toutain, Liz
Flynn, Luis M. Contreras (Telefonica), Mahesh Jethanandani, Manoj
Gudi, Martin Horneffer, Matthew Bocci, Med Boucadair, Michael Mackey,
Michael Richardson, Michael Scharf, Mikko Pesonen, Nacho Dominguez
(Telefonica), Naveen Achyuta, Nick Corran, Nils Warnke, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Paolo Lucente, Parisa Foroughi, Per Andersson, Phil
Shafer, Qin Wu, Qiufang Ma, Raquel Rodriguez, Reshad, Reshad Rahman,
Rob Shakir, Rob Wilton, Roland Bless (KIT), Roland Schott, Rüdiger
Geib, Rui Zhuang, Ruibo Han, Sabine Randriamasy, Scott Mansfield
(Ericsson), Scott Robohn, Shengnan Yue, Suresh Krishnan, Thomas Graf,
Toerless Eckert, Wangbo, Warren Kumari, Wes Hardaker, Wim Henderickx,
Xue Yang, Y. Richard Yang, Yangbo, Yisong Liu, and Zhenqiang Li.
Appendix E. Workshop Program Committee
The workshop program committee members were Wes Hardaker (co-chair),
Dhruv Dhody (co-chair), Qin Wu, Suresh Krishnan, Benoît Claise,
Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani, Kent Watsen, and Warren
Kumari.
IAB Members at the Time of Approval
Internet Architecture Board members at the time this document was
approved for publication were: TODO
Acknowledgments
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Wes Hardaker
Email: hardaker@isi.edu
Dhruv Dhody
Email: dd@dhruvdhody.com
Hardaker & Dhody Expires 2 August 2025 [Page 22]