Comments on draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-00.txt

First let me salute this I-D. I believe that it's useful for PCE, and an
evolution of this work can be useful for other WGs in the Routing Area
and in other Areas. 

A few comments:

1. The organization of the document does not follow its own
recommendation in Section 2.4, by not placing the Manageability
Considerations section immediately before the Security Considerations
section
2. I believe that a more appropriate title for the mandatory section
that is being proposed would be 'Operational and Manageability
Considerations'
3. In Section 2.1 it would be useful to give an example of a case when a
null (Operational and) Manageability Consideration section is justified.
For example, when the document extends and updates another document, and
the original section covers all necessary information. 
4. Section 3 should include a subsection detailing what management
operations are expected to be performed as result of the deployment of
the protocol - specifically if write operations will be allowed (on
routers? on hosts?), if notifications for alarms or other events will be
allowed
5. Section 3.1 could be extended to include information about
installation and initial deployment. Beyond the timers example Section
3.1 could also include information about default modes of operation and
default state of logical control variables. 
6. It would be useful to mention in Section 3.2 if read-write or only
read-only access is allowed for the information and/or data models
7. Section 3.5 deserves some editing for clarity. Is this about what
protocols are recommended or expected to be used for operational or
management purposes? 

 Thanks and Regards,

Dan



_______________________________________________
OPS-NM mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm