I support WG adoption of this draft.
This draft provides comprehensive guidance to I-D authors/reviewers on how to
write/review the operational and management parts.
I had a quick look on the draft and found that IPPM is expanded as "IP
Performance Monitoring" which should read as "IP Performance Measurement".
That find makes me curious about the potential differences among the following
terms:
* Performance Management
* Performance Monitoring
* Performance Measurement
Does this draft need to capture their (if any) differences?
Cheers,
Xiao Min
Original
From: AlvaroRetanaviaDatatracker <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;
Date:
2025年10月22日 04:52
Subject: [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] 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]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
