RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management(Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of NewProtocols and Protocol Extensions) to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Sam,

A clarification and a clarification question in-line.

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:23 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Sam Hartman; ietf@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Last Call: 
> draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management(Guidelines for 
> Considering Operations and Management of NewProtocols and 
> Protocol Extensions) to BCP
> 
> >>>>> "Dan" == Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>     Dan> Sam, Thank you for your review and opinions.
> 
>     Dan> I would like to remind you and let many people that are not
>     Dan> aware about the history of the document know one fact that
>     Dan> may be important. This document is an outcome of the
>     Dan> discussions hold at the IESG retreat in May 2006. I was then
>     Dan> the 'fresh' AD bringing this issue to the IESG table, we
>     Dan> discussed approaches on dealing with management in the IETF
>     Dan> and the need for a different approach of looking at
>     Dan> management than the 'write a MIB' which was the rule in the
>     Dan> IETF WGs until then. I took the action item to 'write a
>     Dan> draft' on this issue - which then developped in this piece of
>     Dan> work chartered in the OPSAWG.
> I certainly appreciate the work that has gone into this 
> draft.  I'm not sure why the origins here are important.  If 
> you're saying that it should have special status because the 
> original discussion happened at the IESG level, I disagree.  
> If you're saying that the content has broad consensus because 
> it started at the IESG level, I disagree.  If you're saying 
> that it's important work with a long history, I agree.

None of these - just background information to place this document in
context. 

...

> 
>     Dan> and for this reason rightly avoids making
>     Dan> a prescription or imposing a fixed solution or format in
>     Dan> dealing with operational considerations and manageability
>     Dan> aspects of the IETF protocols. I think that it does make
>     Dan> however the point that operational deployment and
>     Dan> manageability aspects need to be taken into considerations
>     Dan> for any new IETF work. The awareness of these issue should
>     Dan> exist in any work the IETF engages with, after all we develop
>     Dan> technologies and protocols to be deployed and operated in the
>     Dan> real life Internet, not abstract mathematical models. It is
>     Dan> fine if a WG decides that its protocol needs not
>     Dan> interoperable management or no standardized data model, but
>     Dan> this should be the result of discussions and decisions, not
>     Dan> of mission.
> 
> 
> It's not at all clear to me from this document that would be fine.
> That's one of my most serious problems with the document.


Can you clarify? I cannot understand what is clear to you and what is
not, and with which statement you do not agree. 


> 
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]