Hi David, Thanks for your review.
Discussing with the draft authors right now, we believe that the protocol designer might also be considered as the implementer. If not the same person, at least should be discussing together, therefore the advice are valid for both. Somehow, it's similar to the security considerations, which doesn't make a clear distinction between the two roles
Regards, Benoit
I believe this is useful WG work and support adoption. I've also just asked on mic if the implementers are in scope for this document, which does seem to be the case. I do think this should be pointed out a bit more, as in, when writing protocol specs we should spend the time writing down *how* we expect things are used, and what that means for implementers. To be explicit, in an actual draft this is things that would read like "when troubleshooting, operators likely would look at a table of XYZ organized by ABC, because DEF, so maybe make that easily accesible" or "we expect operators use 1 of ABC and 1000 of DEF, this should be taken into account when implementing configuration". -equi On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 01:52:12PM -0700, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote: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]
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
