Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

Adrian Farrel(IETF CCAMP WG)
Hi,

What I heard in Vancouver was that the ADs would not want to make it
mandatory to include a Manageability Considerations section in Routing
Area I-Ds.

Not sure I agree with the logic of this (which seemed to be that people
will ignore the requirement or will simply add pass-through text), but if
that is the conclusion of the ADs, then I'm cool.

Question:
Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or should we throw it
out?

I think that before making a decision, it would be sensible to (re-)read
the early sections of the draft.

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt


> Hi,
>
> Following some mild interest two IETF's ago, we have updated this I-D.
>
> The chief change is some fleshing out of the guidance for the content of
> mandatory manageability sections, and the inclusion of an example from a
> current I-D.
>
> It seems to me that the Routing Area (under guidance of its ADs) now
needs

> to decide whether this is something we pursue and turn into a rule
> (completing all of the details), or whether we should abandon the idea.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>
>


_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

ASH, GERALD R, ATTLABS
> Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or should
> we throw it out?

IMO we should advance to BCP, and require a manageability section.
Requiring the section will force the authors to give thoughtful
consideration to what the manageability requirements are for the
feature.

Thanks,
Jerry

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

Zafar Ali (zali)
In reply to this post by Adrian Farrel(IETF CCAMP WG)
I agree w/ Jerry's comment and in-favor of this draft.

Thanks

Regards... Zafar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:21 PM
> To: Adrian Farrel; [hidden email]
> Cc: Loa Andersson; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Avri Doria
> Subject: RE: Progressing:
> draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt
>
> > Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or
> should we throw
> > it out?
>
> IMO we should advance to BCP, and require a manageability section.
> Requiring the section will force the authors to give
> thoughtful consideration to what the manageability
> requirements are for the feature.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

Tom Petch
I agree and am in favour.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[hidden email]>
To: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[hidden email]>; "Adrian Farrel"
<[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Loa Andersson" <[hidden email]>; "Avri Doria" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:41 PM
Subject: RE: Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt


I agree w/ Jerry's comment and in-favor of this draft.

Thanks

Regards... Zafar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:21 PM
> To: Adrian Farrel; [hidden email]
> Cc: Loa Andersson; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Avri Doria
> Subject: RE: Progressing:
> draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt
>
> > Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or
> should we throw
> > it out?
>
> IMO we should advance to BCP, and require a manageability section.
> Requiring the section will force the authors to give
> thoughtful consideration to what the manageability
> requirements are for the feature.
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion


_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

Adrian Farrel(IETF CCAMP WG)
Attention ADs.

I wouldn't claim overwhelming support, but I would also note that the only
issues raised so far were by you at the meeting in Vancouver.

So where do we go from here?

We originally positioned this as Informational, but making firm
requirements.

My suggestion, in response to your concerns in Vancouver was to keep this
as Informational, but drop the requirements making the Manageability
Concerns section advisory.

The small email exchange on the list, however, is requesting BCP status
with firm requirements.

Do you want to give some guidance and enter into a discussion?

Cheers,
Adrian


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Petch" <[hidden email]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Loa Andersson" <[hidden email]>; "Avri Doria" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Progressing:
draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt


> I agree and am in favour.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[hidden email]>; "Adrian Farrel"
> <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "Loa Andersson" <[hidden email]>; "Avri Doria" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:41 PM
> Subject: RE: Progressing:
draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

>
>
> I agree w/ Jerry's comment and in-favor of this draft.
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards... Zafar
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> > Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:21 PM
> > To: Adrian Farrel; [hidden email]
> > Cc: Loa Andersson; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Avri Doria
> > Subject: RE: Progressing:
> > draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt
> >
> > > Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or
> > should we throw
> > > it out?
> >
> > IMO we should advance to BCP, and require a manageability section.
> > Requiring the section will force the authors to give
> > thoughtful consideration to what the manageability
> > requirements are for the feature.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jerry
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > routing-discussion mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

Curtis Villamizar

In message <00dd01c5ecf0$045f0750$fb849ed9@Puppy>
"Adrian Farrel" writes:

>  
> Attention ADs.
>  
> I wouldn't claim overwhelming support, but I would also note that the
> only issues raised so far were by you at the meeting in Vancouver.
>  
> So where do we go from here?
>  
> We originally positioned this as Informational, but making firm
> requirements.
>  
> My suggestion, in response to your concerns in Vancouver was to keep
> this as Informational, but drop the requirements making the
> Manageability Concerns section advisory.
>  
> The small email exchange on the list, however, is requesting BCP
> status with firm requirements.
>  
> Do you want to give some guidance and enter into a discussion?
>  
> Cheers,
> Adrian


Adrian,

It makes no sense to try to mandate something in an informational
draft.

If you mandated this structure most routing protocols would have to
cite the same link liveness and host liveness protocols and how they
interact plus the mechanisms of the protocol itself.

If there is a set of routing protocol for which management is not
widely enough understood, having a separate informational draft would
be good.  Otherwise to be complete this would be a very big section.

For example, in addition to MIB you missed XML.  Do you cite the DTD
and a sample XLST?  Is there such a things as a common XML DTD across
vendors (I think not)?  If a routing protocol was written prior to the
use of XML for management would that preclude using XML or require a
new iteration of each routing protocol?

I think it is a mistake to put in a "how to run your network" tutorial
in each routing protocol.  So far operations practices have changed
independently of iterations of the routing protocol itself.  Even
implememtation changes such as coupling with link liveness and
neighbor liveness detection occur independently of the routing
protocol itself.  Coupling the routing protocol with management of the
routing protocol by putting it in the same document would be a
mistake.

Curtis

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

Zafar Ali (zali)
In reply to this post by Adrian Farrel(IETF CCAMP WG)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 4:02 PM
> To: [hidden email]; Bill Fenner; [hidden email]
> Cc: Loa Andersson; Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: Progressing:
> draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt
>
> Attention ADs.
>
> I wouldn't claim overwhelming support, but I would also note
> that the only issues raised so far were by you at the meeting
> in Vancouver.

Hi Alex, Bill,

I did not attend this meeting in Vancouver and am wondering if you can
share your objection points to this? You may point me back to minutes,
which I havn't seen/ may have missed. But IMO a cut and paste here would
help the discussion.

Thanks

Regards... Zafar

>
> So where do we go from here?
>
> We originally positioned this as Informational, but making
> firm requirements.
>
> My suggestion, in response to your concerns in Vancouver was
> to keep this as Informational, but drop the requirements
> making the Manageability Concerns section advisory.
>
> The small email exchange on the list, however, is requesting
> BCP status with firm requirements.
>
> Do you want to give some guidance and enter into a discussion?
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Petch" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Adrian Farrel" <[hidden email]>;
> <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "Loa Andersson" <[hidden email]>; "Avri Doria" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Progressing:
> draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt
>
>
> > I agree and am in favour.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[hidden email]>
> > To: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[hidden email]>; "Adrian Farrel"
> > <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: "Loa Andersson" <[hidden email]>; "Avri Doria" <[hidden email]>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:41 PM
> > Subject: RE: Progressing:
> draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt
> >
> >
> > I agree w/ Jerry's comment and in-favor of this draft.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Regards... Zafar
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [hidden email]
> > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> > > Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 2:21 PM
> > > To: Adrian Farrel; [hidden email]
> > > Cc: Loa Andersson; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Avri Doria
> > > Subject: RE: Progressing:
> > > draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt
> > >
> > > > Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or
> > > should we throw
> > > > it out?
> > >
> > > IMO we should advance to BCP, and require a manageability section.
> > > Requiring the section will force the authors to give
> > > thoughtful consideration to what the manageability
> > > requirements are for the feature.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > routing-discussion mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > routing-discussion mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion