Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:23:59 +0100

A propos of this initiative, I just saw the I-D below which is operating in the
same space albeit from a different direction.  It uses the FCAPS model of
management.

Tom Petch

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

Title : Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols
Author(s) : D. Harrington
Filename : draft-harrington-operations-and-management-00.txt
Pages : 31
Date : 2007-2-15

   New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due
   consideration of operations and management issues related to the
   protocol.  Retrofitting operations and management recommendations to
   protocols is sub-optimal.  The purpose of this document is to provide
   guidance to authors of protocol documents about aspects to consider
   related to the operations and management that should be considered
   for inclusion in documents defining requirements or functionality of
   new protocols or protocol extensions.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-harrington-operations-and-management-0
0.txt

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:55:35 -0000

Hi Tom,

Yes, thanks for flagging this to the working group.

I have been working with Dave Harrington on the construction of his I-D 
since there is obvious input that our draft can provide. If/when his work 
catches up with or overtakes our I-D we will consider cutting over to it. I 
expect to see some convergence as we 'borrow' ideas from each other's work.

At the moment, the tone of Dave's I-D is gentle and it offers 'guidance'. We 
are currently trying to be a little firmer with our recommendations in the 
PCE working group. Hopefully this will all be grist to the mill and the 
community will discover the benefits (or otherwise) of the different 
approaches and we will learn some lessons that we can continue to refine.

I have just submitted an update to the PCE working group document, and I 
continue to look for feedback from within the working group or without.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>; "JP Vasseur" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back 
requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

> Title : Guidelines forFrom [email-masked] Tue Feb 27 08:01:29 2007
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>,
	"JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:55:35 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] Response to Tom Petch (1) comments on
	draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-00.txt
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>

Hi Tom,

Yes, thanks for flagging this to the working group.

I have been working with Dave Harrington on the construction of his I-D 
since there is obvious input that our draft can provide. If/when his work 
catches up with or overtakes our I-D we will consider cutting over to it. I 
expect to see some convergence as we 'borrow' ideas from each other's work.

At the moment, the tone of Dave's I-D is gentle and it offers 'guidance'. We 
are currently trying to be a little firmer with our recommendations in the 
PCE working group. Hopefully this will all be grist to the mill and the 
community will discover the benefits (or otherwise) of the different 
approaches and we will learn some lessons that we can continue to refine.

I have just submitted an update to the PCE working group document, and I 
continue to look for feedback from within the working group or without.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>; "JP Vasseur" 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back 
requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>

> Protocols

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:55:40 -0000

Hi Matthew,

Just been updating the working group document...

> I wonder if in the 3.x section it might be useful to optionally break out 
> a
> legacy protocol interworking & native backward compatibility implications
> subsection to briefly call attention to their management problem spaces.
>
> I see the topic could fall under '3.5 Requirements on Other Protocols'
> however I perceive from the text of that section that the focus is really
> upon protocols that are impacted or required by the proposed protocol,
> not necessarily older cousins that perform a similar function and might
> pose a manageability problem worth reflecting upon.

Yes, this is a good catch.
I think this forms part of "3.6 Impact on Network Operation" since (we 
presume!) the backward compatibility issues are only relevant if the older 
version of the protocol has actually been deployed.
I have added some words to that section.

Regards,
Adrian

ls.

In section 3.3 (Liveness Detection and Monitoring) I have added some words 
to help guide what should be discussed.

In section 3.5 (Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components) 
which is also relevant here, I have added a caveat to say that the author is 
not expected to describe the interaction with every protocol, but should 
describe the interactions that are assumed in order to achieve correct 
functioning of the new protocol.

Lastly, in section 3.6 (Impact on Network Operation) I have clarified the 
need for examination of backward compatibility from the perspective of 
network management.

> -- generally speaking, the document should state that manageability
> description shall ideally remain device/implementation independent (of
> course there will be always exceptions)

This is a good point that David Harrington has captured in his I-D. I have 
added some text to the introduction sections.

> -- the document says "3.1 Control of Function and Policy
>
>   This sub-section describes the configurable items that exist for the
>   control of function or policy"
>
> the control of functions - via the protocol elements described in the
> document is important - but the term policy is to vague at which level of
> the policy specification does that section applies

Hmmm. I think that I actually meant "Control of Function through 
Configuration and Policy"

That is, I meant that the document should identify which protocol features 
are controllable through policy. I did not mean that the authors should have 
to describe in this section how the policy is controlled (since there are 
frameworks and architectures to discuss that in general terms).

I have updated this section accordingly.

> -- the document on network operations is important as it forces the writer
> to document the dimensions impacting the protocol deployment nevertheless
> assuming this is the case (taking the example of the doc. the implementer
> is aware of the scaling threat) which mechanism are in place to prevent
> protocol deployment ? i guess this boils down somehow to the RFC 1264
> discussion and ultimately to the usefulness of the doc. not in terms of
> description but actual practice

Thanks for reminding me about RFC 1264 and the discussion that led to it 
being obsoleted. Yes, in time, this I-D may also be found to be overly 
oppressive, inflexible, or out of date. Experience will show. At the moment, 
however, the trend has been to ignore manageability and we are trying this 
experiment to see if we can get things back on track.

By the way, I think section 3.6 (Impact on Network Operation) would benefit 
from some additional work and I would appreciate textual suggestions.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:55:40 -0000

Hi Matthew,

Regards,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:56:01 -0000

Hi Tom,

In updating the working group draft I have added some general text 
describing manageability, FCAPS and the management plane. Also a reference 
to draft-harrington-operations-and-management. I have tried not to make this 
a book on the topic, but if you have any specific suggestions for text to 
include, I'd be willing to fold them in.

Thanks,
Adrian

>>I think that this draft should start from a broader perspective of what
>> management is before getting into what I see as the details, especially 
>> if the intent is to roll it out across other WG. I think that that is 
>> particularly important in PCE because of the specialised usage of the
>> term management that may crop up (as in the individual ccamp I-D that was 
>> entitled 'GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Transfer of
>> Ownership of Label Switched Paths Between the Management and
>> Control Planes' which is not a use of the word management that I expect 
>> many in the IETF - but not other SDOs - outside these working groups 
>> would recognise).
>>
>> I might use a model of management as made up of:-
>> Security, Accounting, Configuration, Fault, Performance;
>> of which, Security is already accounted for, Accounting is out of
>> scope and the remaining detail items are structured under one of
>> the other three.
>>
>> I am concerned that, without a paragraph or two of overview along these 
>> lines, the wood will be lost amongst the trees.