Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01

From: Simon Leinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 19:20:01 +0200

I have quickly reviewed those sub-areas of the document with which I'm
familiar (SNMP/SMI, IPFIX, NETCONF) and browsed some of the others.  On
the whole I think that this is a useful document.

Nit: I suggest to change text on page 16 as follows:

OLD:

   The extension offers several advantages over IPFIX export, e.g. the

NEW:

   The extension offers several advantages for IPFIX export, e.g. the

(Because even with the extension in question, we're still doing IPFIX
export, just better.)
-- 
Simon.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:29:58 +0200

Thanks Simon,

Your proposed change makes sense.

Regards, Benoit.

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 23:07:51 +0000

Hi all,
It's a good intention of having such a document to guide people who use them.

Some quick comments:
1. It would be useful if a figure can be given describing the relationship among some of the protocols and data models. There are many other papers in IEEE explorers and other web pages.
2. Should network automation be included?
3. There are more work going on about 3.2.  IPv6 Network Operations, would this document only include the RFCs or that ongoing work even for the transition technologies?
4. Some texts for how these protocols and data models be used for data center applications may be needed, if you are aware of the discussion in configuration and management group in ONF.

That's about it, so far.

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:

[OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01

Date:

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:55:01 -0400 (EDT)

From:

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> (Scott O. Bradner)

To:

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

this starts a WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01

comments to the list by the end of Sept please

Scott

_______________________________________________

OPSAWG mailing list

[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:41:11 +0200

Hi Tina,

thank you for your comments.

> 1. It would be useful if a figure can be given describing the
relationship among some of the protocols and data models. There are many
other papers in IEEE explorers and other web pages.

[Me]: Appendix A has been prepared with the intention to show the
relation between the protocols and data models and provides also a
dispatcher for quick access of the appropriate section. Please let me
know if there is something missing.

> 2. Should network automation be included?

[Me]: The draft aims to give an overview on IETF management standards.
References to Internet-Drafts are not allowed, as they are short-living.
All drafts I have in the document right now will be cleaned up before
publishing. I will check where it could fit and mention as ongoing work.

> 3. There are more work going on about 3.2.  IPv6 Network Operations,
would this document only include the RFCs or that ongoing work even for
the transition technologies?

[Me]: We can mention transition technologies as "ongoing work" in
section 3.2.

> 4. Some texts for how these protocols and data models be used for data
center applications may be needed, if you are aware of the discussion in
configuration and management group in ONF.

[Me]: Unfortunately I am not aware of the discussion in configuration
and management group in ONF. I am afraid the documents related to data
center applications we discussed in Quebec are not stable enough for
this kind of standard overview.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

From: ext Tina TSOU [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:08 AM
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01

Hi all,

It's a good intention of having such a document to guide people who use
them.

Some quick comments:

1. It would be useful if a figure can be given describing the
relationship among some of the protocols and data models. There are many
other papers in IEEE explorers and other web pages.

3. There are more work going on about 3.2.  IPv6 Network Operations,
would this document only include the RFCs or that ongoing work even for
the transition technologies?

4. Some texts for how these protocols and data models be used for data
center applications may be needed, if you are aware of the discussion in
configuration and management group in ONF.

That's about it, so far.

Best Regards,

Tina TSOU

-------- Original Message -------- 

Subject: 

Date: 

From: 

[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  (Scott O. Bradner)

To: 

[email-masked]

 
Scott
[email-masked]

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:59:41 +0000

Hi Mehmet,
In line...

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU

From: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:41 AM
To: Tina TSOU; Benoit Claise
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01

Hi Tina,

> 1. It would be useful if a figure can be given describing the relationship among some of the protocols and data models. There are many other papers in IEEE explorers and other web pages.
[Me]: Appendix A has been prepared with the intention to show the relation between the protocols and data models and provides also a dispatcher for quick access of the appropriate section. Please let me know if there is something missing.
[TT] COPS and COPS PR support both Push and Pull Mechanism, which are missing from A.4.

> 2. Should network automation be included?
[Me]: The draft aims to give an overview on IETF management standards. References to Internet-Drafts are not allowed, as they are short-living. All drafts I have in the document right now will be cleaned up before publishing. I will check where it could fit and mention as ongoing work.

> 3. There are more work going on about 3.2.  IPv6 Network Operations, would this document only include the RFCs or that ongoing work even for the transition technologies?
[Me]: We can mention transition technologies as "ongoing work" in section 3.2.

> 4. Some texts for how these protocols and data models be used for data center applications may be needed, if you are aware of the discussion in configuration and management group in ONF.
[Me]: Unfortunately I am not aware of the discussion in configuration and management group in ONF. I am afraid the documents related to data center applications we discussed in Quebec are not stable enough for this kind of standard overview.

Cheers,
Mehmet

From: ext Tina TSOU [mailto:[email-masked]]<mailto:[mailto:[email-masked]]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:08 AM
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01

Hi all,

Some quick comments:

That's about it, so far.

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:

Date:

From:

To:

Scott

OPSAWG mailing list

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:18:54 +0200

Hi Tina,

[TT] COPS and COPS PR support both Push and Pull Mechanism, which are
missing from A.4.

[Me-2]: There is an explicit statement in section 3.3.2. that "the use
of COPS-PR is not recommended." However, we should probably add COPS to
the table in A.3.

Cheers, 
Mehmet