Sam, Thank you for your review and opinions. I would like to remind you and let many people that are not aware about the history of the document know one fact that may be important. This document is an outcome of the discussions hold at the IESG retreat in May 2006. I was then the 'fresh' AD bringing this issue to the IESG table, we discussed approaches on dealing with management in the IETF and the need for a different approach of looking at management than the 'write a MIB' which was the rule in the IETF WGs until then. I took the action item to 'write a draft' on this issue - which then developped in this piece of work chartered in the OPSAWG. ... > > This is a concern that the document does not have broad > enough consensus to be a BCP. I believe that significant > areas of the IETF do not view management interoperability as > a goal--much less a guiding principle of management. I've > been involved in discussions in the Kerberos working group > where we explicitly discussed this and came to the conclusion > that management interoperability was not something anyone in > the room was going to work on. We did work on an information > model which covers aspects where people believed some degree > of management interoperability would be desirable. It does > not cover monitoring, faults, or the like--only provisioning > of the database. > > > Similarly, I'm quite certain that most web server vendors, > ATOM implementors, etc do not want management > interoperability. I understand that ISP operators very much > do want management interoperability. I think that we have a > significant conflict here and I think that we cannot approve > such a BCP without addressing that conflict. One possible > resolution would be to find an subsection of the IETF that > actually agrees with these guidelines and scoping the BCP. > > Similarly, it has been my experience that the desire to > standardize information model semantics is not universal > across the IETF. I believe that the document recognizes the variance in approaches for the different areas, protocols, and working groups in the IETF and for this reason rightly avoids making a prescription or imposing a fixed solution or format in dealing with operational considerations and manageability aspects of the IETF protocols. I think that it does make however the point that operational deployment and manageability aspects need to be taken into considerations for any new IETF work. The awareness of these issue should exist in any work the IETF engages with, after all we develop technologies and protocols to be deployed and operated in the real life Internet, not abstract mathematical models. It is fine if a WG decides that its protocol needs not interoperable management or no standardized data model, but this should be the result of discussions and decisions, not of mission. Dan _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf