+1 Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "SM" <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx>; <opsawg@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf