Hi Sam, A clarification and a clarification question in-line.
Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-i...@mit.edu] > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:23 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Sam Hartman; ietf@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org > 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) <droma...@avaya.com> 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 mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
