Hi Benoit,
After reviewing the latest version (v0.5) of the draft, I noticed that my
feedback has been taken into account and that the new changes are fine.
Also, there is one nit in section 1,
s/dociument/document
Best regards
Chongfeng
From: [email protected]
Date: 2025-08-28 22:04
To: Chongfeng Xie; opsawg
Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: Some comments on RFC5706-bis
Hi Chongfeng,
We believe we have addressed all of your feedback (there is still an ongoing
discussion around AI though).
We had two draft versions posted since July 7th
Can we please review our temp version at
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis
Thanks and regards, Benoit (on behalf of the authors)
Hi Benoit, authors,
I have given a review to RFC5706-bis, which provides guidlines on writing
"Considering Operations and Management" in future IETF drafts, I think this
effort will make the IETF output to be more aligned with the operational
requirements of operators, therefore it is very valuable. I also have the
following comments for your consideration,
1) In Section 2.1, there is "Operation activities that are undertaken to keep
the network."
It seems that this sentence is incomplete, can it be changed to the following
or something like that?
"Operation activities that are undertaken to keep the network run normally."
2) Section 2.2 mentions Radius as a management technology, Based on RFC2865
"Radius is a protocol for carrying authentication, authorization, and
configuration information between a Network Access”
However, I think the term of "management" in this document is mainly about how
to manage “New Protocols or Protocol Extensions，I don't think Radius belongs to
this categoy, so it is not related to the subject of this document.
3) In section 3.2, there is "There are no new operations or manageability
requirements introduced by this document,"
Since RFC5706-bis mainly deals the mangement and operation issus of new
standard, instead of new draft , so it is possible to be changed to the
following?
"There are no specific operations or manageability requirements introduced by
this protocol (or protocol extension),"
4) In Section 5, there is
"The management model should take into account factors such as: What type of
management entities will be involved (agents, network management systems)?"
I propose to add "network Controller" to the list, so the setence is change to
"The management model should take into account factors such as: What type of
management entities will be involved (agents, network controller, network
management systems)?"
5) Section 5.3 is about fault management,
With the increasing number of protocols in the network, operators are
particularly concerned about the stability and impact of new protocols
(including extensions of existing protocols). They are concerned about whether
issuing protocol configuration instructions will have an impact on the normal
operation of the network. The impact of different protocols on network
stability and security varies during deployment. Improper configuration of one
instruction may lead to widespread network failures and even serious losses.
Therefore, it is recommended to analyze and explain the possible impact of new
protocols or extensions, if there is a fault, What is its impact level
(single-device level, AS level, operator level, neighour operators level, or
the whole Internet)? and provide necessary reminders in the documentation on
how to avoid such wrong configurations.
6) Section 5.6.1 is about the performance management of protocol. I think
performance is heavily decided by the resource provided, in particular,
hardware resource provided, for instance, for the same protocol, hardware based
implementation usually has better performance than that of software-based, so I
think the term of "performance" works for equipment, instead of protocol. Since
this draft is about how to write“ Considering Operations and Management in IETF
specifications”, from the perspective of protocol, do we need to keep the
section of perfromance？
7) Section 6 is about"Operational and Management Tooling Considerations", I
suggest adding AI-based system here，such as AI agent.
This is because the adoption of AI technology in network management and
operation has become an important trend. Considering that an RFC will serve for
many years in the future, we should mention it in this section.
8) The purpose of RFC5706-bis is to instruct authors on how to write
"Considering Operations and Management" in their IETF standard. Currently, its
length is a bit long, and in order to facilitate its use, I suggest that the
final version can reduce its length and mainly list instructions on how to
write "considerations". Analytical or supportive content can be moved to the
auxiliary section.
Thank you!
Best regards
Chongfeng
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
