Thank Joe for clarification on the following 3 issues, I don’t expect to have a separate section to document manageability consideration, having one operational section to cover both operational aspect and manageability aspect make a lot of sense to me.
-Qin 发件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2025年10月23日 21:17 收件人: Qin Wu <[email protected]>; Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 主题: Re: [OPSAWG]Call for adoption: draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-06 (Ends 2025-11-11) Thanks for the support and the review, Qin. 1. This document separates operational consideration and management consideration, I am wondering when do we need operational consideration, when do we need management consideration or both. [JMC] While the document makes a distinction between the two (i.e., operating a protocol vs. the use of management protocols with respect to the new protocol or protocol extension), the section one would add to a document is just “Operational Considerations”. In this section, you would include the results of one’s evaluation of both operational and manageability aspects of the new protocol or protocol extension. 2. This document provides checklist and OPS-DIR review template, I am wondering whether we need to have a similar checklist and template for Performance Metric Directorate review, if the answer is needed, I found there is overlapping between OPS-DIR review and Performance Metric Directorate, e.g., one of check item in the check list is: "Performance Monitoring: Are metrics (e.g., latency, resource usage) clearly identified?" [JMC] The performance management section was recently retooled, and this is an area where more discussion is likely needed. Ultimately, we don’t want to overlap with other directions/instructions and we certainly don’t want to conflict. Where possible, we prefer to refer to other work rather than duplicate text. 3. This document provides guidelines for AI related work, we see there are many work in IRTF related to AI as well, I am wondering whether guidelines described in RFC5706bis can be applied to those work in IRTF. [JMC] We’ve been focused on the IETF Stream and at the protocol level (while we admit to an historical focus on L3, we also want to encompass high-level protocols as well). If research groups want to use this document to guide some of their work, they can, but I don’t think we want to formally broaden the scope too much. Joe -Qin -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2025年10月22日 4:52 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: [OPSAWG]Call for adoption: draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-06 (Ends 2025-11-11) Subject: Call for adoption: draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-06 (Ends 2025-11-11) This message starts a 3-week Call for Adoption for this document. Abstract: New Protocols or Protocol Extensions are best designed with due consideration of the functionality needed to operate and manage them. Retrofitting operations and management considerations is suboptimal. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors and reviewers on what operational and management aspects should be addressed when defining New Protocols or Protocol Extensions. This document obsoletes RFC 5706, replacing it completely and updating it with new operational and management techniques and mechanisms. It also introduces a requirement to include an "Operational Considerations" section in new RFCs in the IETF Stream. File can be retrieved from: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/ Please reply to this message keeping [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> in copy by indicating whether you support or not the adoption of this draft as a WG document. Comments to motivate your preference are highly appreciated. Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be found at [3]. Thank you. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
