Re: [OPS-NM] RE: Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague

I think Dan has it right, as far as a practical first step is concerned.
It's far from clear that we have IETF consensus for anything stronger
than guidance, but guidance is certainly needed.

     Brian

Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I am not in the position to disagree :-)
> 
> We need however to start from something. This 'something' is in my
> opinion a document to guide IETF authors in writing manageability and
> operational requirements in their protocol documents. Today in the
> absence of such a reference I encounter huge problems in my role of Area
> Director when I come and say 'we cannot approve this new protocol
> because it says nothing about how it will be managed or what impact it
> will have in the operation of the network'. The typical answers are 'who
> says it needs to say something about management and operations?' or
> 'what is the reference for what we need to include about manageability
> and operations'? 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Natale, Bob [mailto:[email protected]] 
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:23 PM
>>To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; IESG
>>Cc: [email protected]; MIB Doctors; DNS Directorate
>>Subject: [OPS-NM] RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area 
>>BOFs in Prague
>>
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I strongly agree with Andy's position (from below):
>>
>>"IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol should meet 
>>strict manageability requirements, which would obviously need 
>>to be documented in an RFC."
>>
>>Cheers,
>>BobN
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:10 PM
>>To: David B Harrington
>>Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'MIB Doctors'; 
>>'DNS Directorate'; 'IESG'; [email protected]; [email protected]
>>Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague
>>
>>David B Harrington wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list.
>>>
>>>I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion. 
>>
>>These may 
>>
>>>be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs.
>>>
>>>1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the 
>>
>>OpSec WG, to 
>>
>>>have **operators** document how they actually manage 
>>
>>networks today, 
>>
>>>and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to 
>>>accomplish such management.
>>
>>
>>I think such a documentation project could be a lot of work.
>>If there were enough participation, it would be very useful.
>>
>>
>>
>>>For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office 
>>>meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service 
>>>provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is
>>
>>documented
>>
>>>anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are 
>>>documented elsewhere.
>>>
>>>I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented, 
>>>which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more 
>>>SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches 
>>>documented in the IETF.
>>>
>>>2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it
>>
>>would
>>
>>>be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think
>>
>>might
>>
>>>exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist.
>>>
>>>In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It 
>>>might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF 
>>
>>should simply 
>>
>>>move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management 
>>
>>protocols.
>>
>>>If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for 
>>>them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise
>>
>>equipment
>>
>>>vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric 
>>>approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols.
>>>
>>>How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is 
>>>the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the 
>>>Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs,
>>
>>or
>>
>>>let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate
>>
>>management
>>
>>>solutions?
>>
>>
>>IMO this tends to work itself out in the end.
>>The people involved in a WG will influence its outcome, and 
>>the people not involved in a WG will not influence its outcome.
>>
>>Labels like Enterprise and SP are not that helpful here.
>>Some companies have both kinds of products.
>>
>>
>>
>>>3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being 
>>>done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider 
>>>manageability requirements, not a required section in all 
>>
>>documents).
>>
>>>There was  a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open 
>>>meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from 
>>>operators and standards writers, and would probably be a 
>>
>>good choice 
>>
>>>for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached.
>>>
>>>Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2.
>>>
>>
>>More documentation work.  It would be useful to both RFC 
>>readers and writers, so I couldn't argue against it.  I want 
>>every WG that creates a protocol to think about how operators 
>>and developers are going to securely and efficiently manage 
>>the protocol, including configuration.  It should not be left 
>>as a proprietary component forever.  IMO, to advance to Draft 
>>Standard, a protocol should meet strict manageability 
>>requirements, which would obviously need to be documented in an RFC.
>>
>>
>>
>>>dbh
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OPS-AREA mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OPS-NM mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm
>>
> 
> 
> 

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