Subject: [OPSAWG] Further steps for draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:51:46 +0200

Hi All,

after the OPSAWG session on Monday I would like to summarize the next
steps I see for draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-00.txt
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds).

I think we improved the draft a lot with new chapters and content but
also cleaned up the text. It reads much better now.
Though we have still some action items and issues to solve.

- We need to add missing standard MIB modules into section 4 per
management task. Please comment on missing parts.
- We need a decision on whether the sections on Autoconf, and EPP are
needed or should be added?
- Benoit is going to provide a classification of technology options to
ease the selection of technologies and the relevant data models, which
is important as a entry point to the information in the document.
- We are also going to incorporate a table on the technology specific
data models into the draft. 
As per suggestion of our AD both views would be interesting to have in
the document, namely: the current structure in section 4 based on the
management task or application based view (requested by the main
audience of the document outside of the IETF) _and_ the technology
specific view, which is more comprehensive and supports a structure
along the protocol boundaries.

I would like to please the OPSAWG members to review the document and
send their comments to the maillist.
A discussion on missing parts and text on the maillist would be
valuable.
My aim is to get the document stable soon and provide for further review
in OPSAWG and SGIP IPS WG.

Cheers, 
Mehmet

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:23:47 +0200

> management task. Please comment on missing parts.

You also need to take out things that are apparently not widely used
such as for example RFC 2720.

I still believe that the level of detail in section 2.1.4 is out of
proportion and should be further reduced. Provide pointers to the
relevant documents for the various security services but avoid going
into details about thread models and security services. We do not do
this for other protocols either.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:53:45 +0200

Juergen,

thank you for your comments.

Can you please elaborate a bit on:

> Provide pointers to the
> into details about thread models and security services. 

The change log of draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-00 says: 
"Added security discussion to all relevant sections" and  I was hoping 
that I addressed this already.

http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://tools.ietf.
org/id/draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw-03.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.or
g/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-00.txt 

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 4:24 PM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Further steps for draft-ietf-opsawg-management-
> stds
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:57:30 +0200

> that I addressed this already.

Instead of having long discussion about SNMP security threads etc,
point to the relevant SNMP specifications. That is what I meant.

/js