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@xxxxxxxxxxx ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx dharrington@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf