Subject: [AAA-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:53:50 +0200

This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague IETF a
number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting slots with the
intention to bring to attention new ideas in the operations and
management area and discuss which of those are worth becoming subject
for future standardization, research or prototyping work. Although there
are still three months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too early
to send proposals, both in order to help planning the sessions, as well
as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding preliminary
discussions. Any of the lists in the area would do, but
[email-masked] would probably be the best. 

David and Dan

_______________________________________________
AAA-DOCTORS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aaa-doctors

---

From: "David B Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:48:54 -0500

Hi,

Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list.

I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion. These may
be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs.

1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the OpSec WG, to
have **operators** document how they actually manage networks today,
and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to
accomplish such management. 

For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office
meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service
provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is documented
anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are
documented elsewhere. 

I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented,
which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more
SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches
documented in the IETF.

2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it would
be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think might
exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist.

In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It
might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF should simply
move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management protocols.
If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for
them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise equipment
vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric
approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols. 

How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is
the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the
Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs, or
let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate management
solutions?

3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being
done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider
manageability requirements, not a required section in all documents).
There was  a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open
meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from
operators and standards writers, and would probably be a good choice
for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached.

Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2.

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:54 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; MIB Doctors; 
> [email-masked]; DNS Directorate
> Cc: [email-masked]; IESG
> Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague
> 
>  
> MIB-DOCTORS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors
>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:10:09 -0800

> accomplish such management. 

I think such a documentation project could be a lot of work.
If there were enough participation, it would be very useful.

> let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate management

IMO this tends to work itself out in the end.
The people involved in a WG will influence its outcome,
and the people not involved in a WG will not influence its outcome.

Labels like Enterprise and SP are not that helpful here.
Some companies have both kinds of products.

> Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2.

More documentation work.  It would be useful to both RFC readers
and writers, so I couldn't argue against it.  I want every WG
that creates a protocol to think about how operators and developers
are going to securely and efficiently manage the protocol,
including configuration.  It should not be left as a proprietary
component forever.  IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol
should meet strict manageability requirements, which would obviously
need to be documented in an RFC.

> dbh 

Andy

---

From: "Natale, Bob" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:26 -0500

Hi,

I strongly agree with Andy's position (from below):

"IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol should meet strict
manageability requirements, which would obviously
need to be documented in an RFC."

Cheers,
BobN

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:10 PM
To: David B Harrington
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 'MIB Doctors'; 'DNS
Directorate'; 'IESG'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague

Andy

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area