On 7/15/2025 12:56 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
[snip]
(4) What is the name of the new section? Is it one section or
two?
The title of §3.2, for example, calls out what appears to be
one section
("Operations and Manageability Considerations Section"), but
they are
mentioned independently in other places. And still in other
cases, only
the Operational Considerations section is mentioned (in §3.1,
for example).
Is the intent that one section covers both topics? If so,
please be clear
and consistent about it.
Also, most of the document talks about "manageability
considerations", but
a couple of places use "management considerations". The same
for
"operations" and "operational".
The section should be called “Operational and Management
Considerations” to make clear that both operational and managment
considerations are being discussed in the section. The section is
often referred to as “Operational Considerations”, but that does
not make it clear that both operations and management issues are
being discussed. And as the document itself clarifies, operational
considerations != management considerations.
[CMP] This is a bit tricky…
[CMP] “Management” is a noun, with associated adjective as
“Managerial”.
[CMP] While I always wrote "Operational and Management
Considerations”, and I think this is the most widely used
variation, I feel this might benefit from some thinking.
[CMP] The title of the document is "Considering Operations and
Management”.
[CMP] Are there implications of non-modifying-noun versus
adj-modifying-noun constructs?
[CMP] “Operational and Management Considerations"
[CMP] “Operational and Managerial Considerations"
[CMP] “Operations and Management Considerations"
[CMP] I’d say that ‘manageability’ is not an option here as
it’s a subset of management of the how manageable but not the
act of managing.
[mj] Thanks for laying out all the options. My vote is still with
“Operational and Management Considerations”.
[AF] While the current text is a work in progress, the author team
intended to migrate all of the text to a single “Operational
Considerations” section that covers Operations and Management. There
was a lot of debate on a couple of “team” calls and, IIRC, back and to
in the Comments in github. The nub of the debate was, “Under what
circumstances are Management Considerations not Operational
Considerations?” While, of course, Operational Considerations include
elements that are not Management Considerations.
[BC]
We actually discussed that exact point under
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues/80
1. Operations and Manageability Considerations
2. Operational Considerations?
3. Manageability Considerations?
Conclusion from the June 26th meeting
* 2 is already used today
* 2 does include both operational and manageability in the non OPS
people mind
To extend on our discussion...
While 1. might provide the exact distinction between operational and
manageability (which we, OPS people, do know about), we're not sure we
need to be that specific in the section title. 2. is sufficient.
To make an analogy, the famous Security Considerations is a global
section title. It does not say "Confidentiality, Data Integrity,
Authentication, etc. Considerations". However RFC 3553 is there to
explain how to populate the section content, exactly like this future
RFC5706bis.
Regards, Benoit
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
