On 7/13/2025 10:40 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
Thanks for the review, Alvaro.
(1) When is the Operational Considerations section required?
The document "introduces a requirement to include an "Operational
Considerations" section in new IETF Standard Track RFCs." Section
§3.1
(Operational Considerations Section) is more descriptive:
All Internet-Drafts that are advanced for publication as Standards
Track IETF RFC are required to include an "Operational
Considerations" section. It is recommended that Internet-Drafts
advanced for publication as Experimental protocol specifications also
include such sections. "Operational Considerations" sections will
also often be appropriate in Internet-Drafts advanced for publication
as Informational RFCs, for example, in protocol architecture and
protocol requirements documents.
Documents of any status can define New Protocols or Protocol
Extensions, so
it is not clear to me why only documents on the Standards Track are
required to include an "Operational Considerations" section. The
document's status doesn't eliminate the need to consider how New
Protocols
or Protocol Extensions will fit into the network or be managed.
Also, does "often be appropriate in...Informational RFCs" mean that
including the "Operational Considerations" section is optional, or
that
there may be cases where it is required?
IMO, the "Operational Considerations" section should be required in
all
RFCs. §3.2 (Null Operations and Manageability Considerations Section)
offers text to be used in cases where it is truly determined that no
"Operational Considerations" are needed.
[JMC] Good point. We have been focusing on the standards track, but
perhaps since we have wording to include when Operational
Considerations are not needed, we can extend the recommendation to
include it for all document tracks and explain why they are not needed
in specific docs. To be discussed.
We discussed that point under
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues/76
Mike Bishop had a good point IMO, not to include all RFCs, which also
mean IAB and IRTF:
A change that affects anything outside of the IETF Stream would have
to come through RSWG. That's not an argument for or against making
any given change, only noting that the scope of the change affects
the venue in which it can be discussed.
Personally, I hope that Experimental and Informational would follow the
guidelines. We could extend the scope for those.
From RFC2026
4. THE INTERNET STANDARDS TRACK...................................10
4.1 Standards Track Maturity Levels.............................11
4.1.1 Proposed Standard.......................................11
4.1.2 Draft Standard..........................................12
4.1.3 Internet Standard.......................................13
4.2 Non-Standards Track Maturity Levels.........................13
4.2.1 Experimental............................................13
4.2.2 Informational...........................................14
4.2.3 Procedures for Experimental and Informational RFCs......14
4.2.4 Historic................................................15
Regards, Benoit_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
