Hi,
Here is a summary of Last Call comments:
1) Cullen Jennings told chairs to pay attention;
[dbh: no action required.]
2) Henning Schulzrinne concerned about slowing approvals, and applying
to new protocols and extensions.
[dbh: added text about the different needs for new protocols and
extensions]
3) Bernard Aboba concerned that IETF should focus on making successful
protocols, and Management Considerations may be an unnecessary
requirement.
[dbh: this document went to great lengths to say that it was NOT
prescribing a Management Considerations requirement. sigh]
Management support is seldom a show-stopper. Wants differentiation of
need with new protocol versus existing protocols.
[dbh: added text about the different needs for new protocols and
extensions]
4) IANA - no problem
[dbh: no action required.]
5) Miguel Garcia - GEN-ART + editorial
[dbh: all comments fixed]
6) Sam Hartman - objects to BCP
* It does not reflect practices across significant areas of the IETF
interoperable mgmt not required for all protocols
document focuses on networking devices; document should be
scoped.
[dbh: removed "primary" goal]
[dbh: I added some text to "Designing for OPS and Management"
in the Introduction that talks about the traditional approach of using
MIB modules for networking devices, and that emerging technologies
have caused a change to IETF technologies and atrategy, and management
requirements.]
* It does not provide clear, actionable guidelines
normative requirements vs "might want to consider"
[dbh: added text about "when appropriate," a data model might be
used.]
* It is not sufficiently clear to be understood outside the O&M area.
fails to make distinctions (ops vs mgmt; config vs other mgmt)
document organization and discussions jumbled.
[dbh: removed the use of "operations model". It is unclear what the
"model" part refers to. Changed text to discuss operations, and
deployment, etc.]
[dbh: I moved the counter discussion, which was probably the most
jarring context change. I modified a few other places, but some
specific suggestions for changes might be helpful. YMMV]
[dbh: I removed discussions of data and control planes, and tried to
make the discussion general enough to also include services.]
7) Eliot Lear - Informational, not BCP
section 3.2 needs more applicability discussion
[dbh: I added some text to "Designing for OPS and Management"
in the Introduction that talks about the traditional approach of using
MIB modules for networking devices, and that emerging technologies
have caused a change to IETF technologies and atrategy, and management
requirements.]
[dbh: changed primary gola from interoperability to "the
primary goal is the ability to roll out new useful functions and
services in a way in which they can be managed in a scalable manner,
where one has understood the network impact (as part of total cost of
operations) for that service."]
8) SM - does not scale well for BCP
[dbh: no action required.]
9) Sam (in discussion with Dan) - this document does not indicate that
a WG can decide "no management is fine".
[dbh: section 4.2 is very clear on that point]
10) Eliot Lear - need applicability scope
needs to be be smaller document
[dbh: not something I think we can accomplish without a rewrite and
consensus on whether to keep each detail. WG consensus was to not do a
rewrite at this time.]
11) Eric Rosen - opposes BCP status
[dbh: no action required.]
12) Randy Presuhn - Thinks document is important; prefers
Informational to BCP.
[dbh: no action required.]
13) Joel Halpern - discussion on OPS guidelines versus requirement
[dbh: no action required.]
14) Andy Bierman - discussion of OPS guidelines versus requirement
[dbh: no action required.]
15) Tom Petch - Thinks abstract should be changed. I do not understand
his point well enough to take action, and, as he points out, the
document says it is not trying to solve the problem he raises.
[dbh: no action taken.]
draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-08 has been posted.
David Harrington
dbharrington(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net
dharrington(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf