



Internet Architecture Board (IAB)                            W. Hardaker
Request for Comments: 9968                                              
Category: Informational                                         D. Dhody
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 May 2026


   Report from the IAB Workshop on the Next Era of Network Management
                          Operations (NEMOPS)

Abstract

   The "Next Era of Network Management Operations (NEMOPS)" workshop was
   convened by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) from 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 discussed any
   operational barriers that prevented these technologies from being
   widely implemented.  With the industry, network operators and
   protocol engineers working in collaboration, the workshop developed a
   suggested plan of action and network management recommendations for
   the IETF and IRTF.  Building on RFC 3535, this document provides the
   report of the follow-up IAB workshop on network management.

   Note that this document is a report on the proceedings of the
   workshop.  The views and positions documented in this report are
   those of the workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect IAB
   views and positions.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)
   and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to
   provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of the
   Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
   publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9968.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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
     1.1.  About the Content of This Workshop Report
   2.  Outreach and Survey
   3.  Workshop Scope and Discussion
     3.1.  Session I: Past - Lookback and Analysis
       3.1.1.  Reflections
       3.1.2.  Lessons to be Learned
       3.1.3.  Discussion
     3.2.  Session II: Present - Identified Problems and Requirements
       3.2.1.  Operator Feedback
       3.2.2.  Survey
       3.2.3.  Discussion
     3.3.  Session III: Future - Possible Solutions, Recommendations,
           and Next Steps
       3.3.1.  Suggestions on Future Directions
       3.3.2.  Discussion
     3.4.  Key Takeaways
       3.4.1.  Ecosystem Conclusions
       3.4.2.  Protocol Conclusions
       3.4.3.  Modeling Conclusions
       3.4.4.  Standardization Conclusions
       3.4.5.  Conclusions That Did Not Reach Consensus During the
               Takeaways Discussion
   4.  Not Covered in the Workshop
   5.  Security Considerations
   6.  IANA Considerations
   7.  Informative References
   Appendix A.  Operator Feedback
     A.1.  General
     A.2.  Data Models
   Appendix B.  Key Recommendations from Operator Feedback
   Appendix C.  Position Papers
   Appendix D.  Workshop Participants
   Appendix E.  Workshop Program Committee
   IAB Members at the Time of Approval
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   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).

   The IAB organized a workshop in 2002 to establish a dialog between
   network operators and protocol developers and to guide the IETF's
   work 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 and 11
   recommendations for consideration in future network management
   protocol design and related data models within the IETF.

   Those requirements were instrumental in developing the Network
   Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) (in the NETCONF Working Group)
   [RFC6241], the associated YANG data modeling language (in the NETMOD
   Working Group) [RFC7950], RESTCONF [RFC8040], and most recently the
   CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF) [CORECONF].

   The recent NEMOPS IAB workshop focused on the following key tasks:

   *  Review the outcomes and results of the 2002 workshop (current
      deployments and state of the art) and identify any operational
      barriers that prevent these technologies from being widely
      implemented (limitations and 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.

   This document builds on RFC 3535 with new information gathered from
   the second IAB workshop on the future of network management.  The
   goal of the second workshop was not to invalidate or replace the
   first but to extend the discussion with lessons learned since then.
   Together, both documents capture a snapshot of the evolving needs of
   network management over time.

1.1.  About the Content of This Workshop Report

   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 the 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

   The IAB workshop's Program Committee (PC) planned outreach
   initiatives to foster discussions and gather interest by engaging
   with operators at various operational venues (Réseaux IP Européens
   (RIPE), North American Network Operators Group (NANOG), Asia Pacific
   Regional Internet Conference on Operational Technologies (APRICOT),
   Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC),
   AutoConn, etc.) and conducting information-/requirement-gathering
   sessions.  Participants were encouraged to submit "position papers"
   or "expressions of interest" to join the workshop.  Additionally, a
   [SURVEY] was conducted to collect valuable insights to inform the
   workshop.

   After the workshop, some PC members continued to engage with network
   operators at operational venues to facilitate information sharing and
   gather their feedback on the workshop, thereby helping to shape the
   next steps and outcomes.

3.  Workshop Scope and Discussion

   The workshop was organized across three days, with all participants
   contributing to one discussion per day.  The workshop was organized
   around three topic areas: "Session I: Past - Lookback and Analysis"
   (Section 3.1), "Session II: Present - Identified Problems and
   Requirements" (Section 3.2), and "Session III: Future - Possible
   Solutions, Recommendations, and Next Steps" (Section 3.3).  The
   program committee organized the paper submissions to fit these three
   main themes in order to drive discussion during each of the slots.
   During each discussion, the papers were presented sequentially, and
   an open discussion was held afterwards.  On the last day, an
   additional discussion took place on the key takeaways from the
   workshop and possible next steps (Section 3.4).

   The workshop agenda for each day can be viewed at "Past (Session 1)"
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2024-nemopsws-
   01-sessa/>, "Present (Session II)" <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
   agenda-interim-2024-nemopsws-02-sessa/>, and "Future (Session III)"
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2024-nemopsws-
   03-sessa/>.  All workshop papers and slides can be viewed at
   "materials" <https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/nemopsws/materials/>.

3.1.  Session I: Past - Lookback and 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 Command-Line Interface
   (CLI), SNMP, and MIB technologies, focusing on the context and key
   outcomes of the previous workshop, an assessment of the current state
   of network management as a whole, and an acknowledgement of some
   regrets in how network management technologies developed in the last
   two decades (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 themselves
   determine how to implement those goals), Reproducible (reliably and
   consistently recreated), and Verifiable (asserting that the correct
   changes have been applied).

   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 many, but not
   all, environments.  In certain areas, the advancements in semantics
   and protocols for streaming telemetry have even surpassed the
   original scope of [RFC3535].  [FARRER] 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.  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 Network Management System (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.  While the IETF does not
   itself build tools, it was suggested that having a translation tool
   that runs outside the network device to map IETF device models to
   vendor-specific ones would be beneficial.

3.1.2.  Lessons to be Learned

   [HARDAKER] emphasized that the success of Net-SNMP [NET-SNMP] was
   driven by empowering users through simplicity, stressing 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 Internet of Things (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 Concise Binary Object
   Representation (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; instead, they must integrate lessons learned from
   implementation and large-scale deployment.  Thus, highlighting 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 the IETF to rethink the approach to
   standardize data models and the associated network management
   protocols under this guidance.

3.1.3.  Discussion

   The Session I open discussion highlighted the divergence between
   vendor implementations of YANG models and what is accessible via the
   models, particularly when compared to CLI.  Questions were raised
   about how to incorporate fast iteration and rapid changes within the
   established IETF process and culture, especially in contrast to the
   approach used by OpenConfig.  Common challenges identified included a
   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).  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 the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) and IP Flow
   Information Export (IPFIX), to address network management challenges
   beyond configuration is an established reality.  One conclusion was
   that a mechanism was needed to interconnect and harmonize these
   schemas to provide a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of the
   data.

3.2.  Session II: Present - Identified Problems and 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 from operators was presented; they are being maintained
   in [OP-REQ-NM].  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.
   In their experience, the IETF service models (where available) were
   considered stable and in good condition, whereas the OpenConfig
   device models were noted as lacking feature richness and stability.
   In contrast, vendor YANG models are often more flexible and available
   in a more timely manner.  Achieving fully closed-loop automated and
   autonomous networking will require a greater focus on observability,
   particularly through advancements in streaming telemetry with the
   "on-change" feature [RFC9196].

   [JIMENEZ] discussed the challenges associated with the Software
   Defined Networking (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.

   Using YANG-Push as an example, [GRAF] highlighted how standards
   development often fails to align with the needs of network operators,
   the constraints of network vendors, and 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 [OP-REQ-NM], leveraging feedback and
   discussions from the workshop.  Some key requirements, suggestions,
   and observations that were highlighted in the workshop:

   *  Network software implementations can only happen with a strong,
      committed standardization effort, complemented by active
      involvement in open-source projects that facilitate access to
      code.

   *  Need to rationalize the device model 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
      (API discovery).

   *  Outline a set of recommendations for core/key features, along with
      appropriate justifications, that will help foster more
      implementations that meet operators' needs.

   *  Reassess the value of some IETF proposals, including comparison to
      competing or emerging solutions (e.g., gRPC Network Management
      Interface (gNMI) vs. YANG-Push)

   *  Need for a more agile process for the development and maintenance
      of YANG modules in the IETF.  RFCs might not be suited for
      documenting YANG modules.

   *  Consider approaches to ease integration by design (e.g., protocols
      and data models).

   *  Need for a reference specification to translate YANG-based data
      into the knowledge graph (KG).

   *  Consider approaches to help YANG models scale.

   *  Consider programmatic approaches to ensure lossless mappings
      between service/network/device data models.

   *  Consider approaches to ensure reuse of / consistent data structure
      across various network management 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
      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 common "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 ecosystem where data and networking engineers can
      collaborate.

   *  Distinct approaches are 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
   presented (see Appendix A).

3.2.3.  Discussion

   The Session II open discussion featured feedback from implementers,
   highlighting the difficulty in moving to YANG and mapping to vendor
   implementations and how divergence in implementations creates
   complexity and necessitates workarounds.  Implementations need to
   support standard models alongside vendor-specific 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 with real data, and better
   quality of vendor implementation and documentation.  The
   implementation and support of multiple models (IETF, OpenConfig, and
   vendor-specific models) 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 centered on exploring potential future
   solutions and identifying key takeaways, recommendations, and next
   steps.  At the end of day three, 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.  Suggestions on 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 IETF
   Hackathons, along with the various challenges in mapping across
   protocols and models, were discussed.  A potential solution was
   proposed that uses 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] recommended prioritizing the following into four areas: (1)
   using RESTCONF+JSON (including YANG-Push Lite) as a single protocol
   beyond network management, (2) utilizing Network Management Datastore
   Architecture (NMDA) model, (3) creating data model adapters (off-box
   so that common standard models can be developed in parallel to the
   required device vendor-specific models), and (4) defining device
   protocol adapters (with RESTCONF-like Northbound Interface (NBI) for
   a common shared-by-all repository).

   [WILTON] recommended reducing unnecessary complexity, delivering
   timely solutions, fostering open collaboration between vendors and
   operators, prioritizing simplicity, and converging to a single model/
   protocol (though this was discussed as difficult to accomplish).
   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 in Session III explored a range of topics.  These
   included the absence of NMDA in OpenConfig and debate over whether
   its complexity is justified; the historical context of gNMI's
   introduction in the IETF and whether RESTCONF offers advantages over
   it; and the broader challenges of building consensus, with
   participants noting that while the process takes time, it should not
   be short-circuited.  The discussion also addressed the practicality
   of converging on a single protocol and concluded that such
   convergence is, in fact, feasible.

   The discussion emphasized off-box adapters, which allow vendors to
   continue innovating and developing vendor-specific models rapidly.
   One suggestion that attracted a lot of discussion centered on
   developing a standard model mapping to vendor-specific models that
   could 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 but 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.

   Conversations ensued around questions asked, such as "Is YANG
   applicable beyond network management?" and "Can applications adopt
   YANG as a modeling language to define their services?"

   Some key recommendations made by operators during outreach
   (Section 2) are listed in Appendix B.

3.4.  Key Takeaways

   At the end of the third day, the discussion turned to key takeaways
   that have a high-level consensus.  These were edited live during the
   last discussion of the workshop, and anything that did not reach a
   wide consensus was moved into a "future considerations" list
   (Section 3.4.5).

3.4.1.  Ecosystem Conclusions

   The following 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 for configuration in many
       networks.  Popular protocols include SNMP, NETCONF, RESTCONF, and
       gNMI.

   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
       has been implemented and is 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

   The following conclusions were reached while discussing network
   management protocols, more specifically.

   1.  NETCONF and YANG are not used much for monitoring tasks.

   2.  NETCONF and YANG do not have full coverage on many devices.

   3.  Polling-based solutions are still frequently deployed.  Push-
       based solutions are often desired but are not yet widely
       available.

3.4.3.  Modeling Conclusions

   The following conclusions were reached while discussing network
   management modeling, more specifically.

   1.  Some YANG models can become complex due to the underlying
       features they represent, not due to the language itself.

   2.  Multi-vendor compatibility support is required.

   3.  Even vendor-specific features, not just standardized protocol
       features, need to be exposed through network management models
       and 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 it 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 the goal of supporting one configuration set across a
       diversity of devices with different internal models.

3.4.4.  Standardization Conclusions

   The following conclusions were reached while discussing the best ways
   to standardize network management protocols and associated models.

   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,
       and 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.  Conclusions That Did Not Reach Consensus During the Takeaways
        Discussion

   Here, we list the things that the group realized needed significantly
   more attention in order to come to a conclusion, while updating the
   key takeaways in real time.

   1.  Some, but not all, saw NETCONF for configuration as being
       successful in some larger-scale deployments.  Although this
       statement is true in some contexts, many operators indicated
       their need to rely on other forms of access to manage their
       networks, such as CLIs, Expect scripts, and other protocols.

   2.  Many hope that NETCONF, and RESTCONF more specifically, will
       continue to move to a long-term configuration management
       solution.  However, some participants doubted whether the
       protocol and its data models can ever be truly ubiquitous and
       keep pace with the device deployment pace.

   While many other items also need further discussion, this list
   specifically includes those that were actively discussed during the
   live editing session in the workshop.

4.  Not Covered in the Workshop

   Some topics absent from the workshop discussions included tooling
   (what is currently missing) and strategies to support tool
   development (who pays, who develops, and 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 less attention.  During the workshop, the discussion on
   possible future directions prioritized improving existing solutions
   rather than introducing entirely new ones (such as enabling
   intelligence in network management).

5.  Security Considerations

   This document is a workshop report and does not impact the security
   of the Internet.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

7.  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. D., 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>.

   [CONTRERAS]
              Boucadair, M., Contreras, LM., 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>.

   [CORECONF] Veillette, M., Ed., Van der Stok, P., Ed., Pelov, A., Ed.,
              Bierman, A., and C. Bormann, Ed., "CoAP Management
              Interface (CORECONF)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-core-comi-21, 2 March 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-
              comi-21>.

   [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>.

   [FARRER]   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>.

   [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, LM., 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. M. 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] 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>.

   [JIMENEZ]  Jiménez, J., Mansfield, S., Rodriguez A, R., Pesonen, M.,
              Torvinen, V., and J. Karvonen, "Evolving Challenges and
              Solutions in Network Management", November 2024,
              <https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-nemopsws-paper-
              evolving-challenges-and-solutions-in-network-management-
              00.pdf>.

   [JIMENEZ-2]
              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>.

   [MARTINEZ] Martinez-Casanueva, I. D., "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", <http://www.net-snmp.org/>.

   [OP-REQ-NM]
              Boucadair, M., Contreras, L. M., Gonzalez de Dios, O.,
              Graf, T., and R. Rahman, "An Update of Operators
              Requirements on Network Management Protocols and
              Modelling", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-04, 6 May 2026,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nmop-
              rfc3535-20years-later-04>.

   [OPENCONFIG]
              "OpenConfig", <https://www.openconfig.net/>.

   [RFC3535]  Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
              Management Workshop", RFC 3535, DOI 10.17487/RFC3535, May
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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/info/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/info/rfc7950>.

   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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/info/rfc8309>.

   [RFC9196]  Lengyel, B., Clemm, A., and B. Claise, "YANG Modules
              Describing Capabilities for Systems and Datastore Update
              Notifications", RFC 9196, DOI 10.17487/RFC9196, February
              2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9196>.

   [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>.

   [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.  Operator Feedback

   This section compiles the operator feedback gathered through outreach
   and information gathering at various operational venues (RIPE, NANOG,
   APRICOT, LACNIC, AutoConn, etc.).  The PC synthesized this input and
   presented it during the workshop (see Section 3.2.2).

A.1.  General

   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.  The 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., Kubernetes (K8s) /
       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, while others use a high-level programming
       language.  In any case, on the client side, multiple programming
       languages are used.

   6.  Screen scraping is unfortunately necessary and painful.  This
       most often occurs when interacting with a device that only has a
       CLI.

   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 help 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
       parameters.  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 parameters.  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.  It was noted that navigating standard models can be difficult.  A
       network engineer knows the vendor CLI commands but has trouble
       locating the corresponding leaves in the standard YANG models
       defined by Standards Development Organizations (SDOs).

   6.  There was a wish that the 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
   (note that there were a 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.

   *  Operators: Be actively involved with the "running code" efforts.

   *  IETF: Recommend a solution stack for common use cases.

   *  Technology Ambassadors: Evangelize the recommended solution stack
      for common cases.

   *  Vendors: Support the recommended approach to the 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/>.

   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) [FARRER]

   *  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, LM. 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]

   *  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-2]

   *  LM. 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]

Appendix D.  Workshop Participants

   The workshop participants were Alex Huang, Alexander Clemm, Alexander
   Pelov, Benoît Claise, Boris Khasanov, Brad Peters, 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, Mahesh Jethanandani, Manoj Gudi, Martin
   Horneffer, Matthew Bocci, Med Boucadair, Michael Mackey, Michael
   Richardson, Michael Scharf, Mikko Pesonen, Nacho Dominguez, 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 Rahman, Rob Shakir, Rob Wilton, Roland
   Bless, Roland Schott, Rüdiger Geib, Rui Zhuang, Ruibo Han, Sabine
   Randriamasy, Scott Mansfield, 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:

   *  Matthew Bocci

   *  Roman Danyliw

   *  Dhruv Dhody

   *  Jana Iyengar

   *  Cullen Jennings

   *  Suresh Krishnan

   *  Mirja Kühlewind

   *  Warren Kumari

   *  Jason Livingood

   *  Mark Nottingham

   *  Tommy Pauly

   *  Alvaro Retana

   *  Qin Wu

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Benoît Claise, Jürgen Schönwälder, Kristian Larsson, Jaime
   Jiménez, Michael Richardson, Phil Shafer, Mirja Kühlewind, and Roman
   Danyliw for helpful suggestions to improve this report.

   Thanks to Alvaro Retana for shepherding this document.

Authors' Addresses

   Wes Hardaker
   Email: hardaker@isi.edu


   Dhruv Dhody
   Email: dd@dhruvdhody.com
