Re: LC summary for draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management

+1

Tom Petch


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "SM" <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
To: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>; "IETF Discussion" 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com>; 
<opsawg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: LC summary for draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management

Hi David,
At 13:51 23-06-2009, David Harrington wrote:

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]


The problem is not about what your document is not prescribing.  It 
is about how it may be used.  In Section 1:

   "This document provides guidelines to help protocol designers and
    working groups consider the operations and management functionality
    for their new IETF protocol or protocol extension at an earlier phase."

In an Informational document, guidelines provide guidance.  In a BCP 
document, it can be read as "the IETF community agrees to adopt these 
guidelines".  In Section 1.2:

   "This document does not impose a solution, or imply that a formal data
    model is needed, or imply that using a specific management protocol
    is mandatory."

The catch is in the following sentence:

   "Any decision to make a Management Considerations section a mandatory
    publication requirement for IETF documents is the responsibility of
    the IESG, or specific area directors, or working groups, and this
    document avoids recommending any mandatory publication requirements."

The IESG could come up with such a requirement for the IETF Stream if 
this document is published as a BCP.

In Section 1.3:

   "The IESG policy to require working groups to write a MIB module to
    provide manageability for new protocols is being replaced by a policy
    that is more open to using a variety of management protocols and data
    models designed to achieve different goals."

The insistence on BCP could be seen as a way to set the stage for that.

At 13:40 24-06-2009, Eric Rosen wrote:

Since assigning responsibilities to the IESG is presumably out of scope of
this document, why not shorten this sentence to:

        "This document avoids recommending any mandatory publication
        requirements"


I suggest a slight change to the proposed sentence:

   This document does not recommend any mandatory publication requirements

I also suggest publishing the document as Informational.

Regards,
-sm 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf