Followup: (What's wrong with provisioning tools?)

Below is a brief summary of the 'tools' and 'requirements' (plus a
couple of unanswered questions) identified in response to my original
post.

Interestingly, no one mentioned next-gen OSS or anything that vaguely
refered to the TMF (http://www.tmforum.org/) and the work that they've
done over the years breaking down operational problems with network
management systems. I suspect that no one is willing to stand up and be
counted in defense of the tmf approach - at least how it tracks
fulfillment systems - (and unfortunately the countless billions of funds
that have gone into launch and support these companies).

It's worthy to note that RFC3139 also identifies the requirements for IP
configuration management.

Would it be correct then to assume that the divergence between the
operator and the vendor communities identified in the ietf draft (linked
below) is a pointer to the failing of the approach taken by the ng/oss
folks? If this is true, then what possibly is the solution to the
excessive cost of management for todays networks?

Cheers,
David