Subject: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-harrington-operations-and-management-01

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:40:29 -0500

Repeating what I said in the room:

This is an useful document, with lots of good advice. But its scope is 
sharply limited, and not in ways that everyone will expect given the title 
of "management".

1) The document, for better or worse, talks about management of a protocol 
endpoint on a single device. Despite its title, it doesn't talk about 
managing the *protocol* (it manages one end at a time), and doesn't even 
come near managing the *service* (which includes a lot of stuff that's very 
far away from the box).

(retreat on that: there are some elements, like "consider whether you need 
billing data", that touch on larger scopes. I believe it is wise to retreat 
from those forays into unknown territory, and rather talk about "producing 
data that is useful for a billing service").

2) The document needs to clearly point out that one needs to identify the 
*entities* to be managed - what the participants in the protocol are, and 
how they are tied to manageable entities. This has been an enormous source 
of confusion in security ("WHO is being authorized by this certificate?"), 
and will be no less of a source of confusion in management if the protocol 
designers don't get it right.

With those two things made clear, I think this has the potential of being 
an extremely useful document.

                Harald

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

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:33:19 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> *entities* to be managed - what the participants in the 
> protocol are, and how they are tied to manageable entities. 
> This has been an enormous source of confusion in security 
> ("WHO is being authorized by this certificate?"), and will be 
> no less of a source of confusion in management if the 
> protocol designers don't get it right.
> 
> With those two things made clear, I think this has the 
> potential of being an extremely useful document.
> 
>                 Harald
> 

I would like to support this point of Harald. In my opinion the
manageability considerations should start from describing the
operational model, which includes identifying the entities to be
managed, how the respective protocol is supposed to be installed,
configured and monitored, who are the managers and what type of
management interfaces and protocols they would use. 

Dan