Subject: [Pce] WG Feed-back required on draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:12:59 -0500

Dear WG,

The idea of adding a Manageability section to IDs was first  
introduced by Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 2006 (for  
reference, see the WG minutes) since then two revisions of draft- 
farrel-pce-manageability-requirements have been published based on  
the comments received from members of the PCE WG and OPS ADs.

My recollection of the discussions about this ID is a general good  
support from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to Dan for his  
help). The were some concerns from Lou that have been addressed in  
the latest revision of the draft.

Furthermore, there are several IDs in the works for which the authors  
agreed to add a manageability section and "experiment" the process  
that may have to be tuned as we'll move forward.

Because, this ID does have some implication on (current and future)  
PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a WG document.

Thanks.

JP.

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

---

From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:28:23 -0600

> PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a WG 

Question on the ultimate intent of this draft
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requireme
nts-02.txt:

Is the goal to only apply the requirements to the PCE WG drafts or to
the IETF as a whole?  It appears the intent is to restrict to the PCE WG
and hope that other WGs apply in the future.  If we adopt this process
just for the PCE WG, what becomes of the revised process after the PCE
WG completes its work and is disbanded?

Process experiments are run according to RFC 3933
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3933.txt?number=3933, and AFAIK are intended
to be applied to IETF-wide processes.  

Thanks,
Jerry

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:39:06 -0000

All good questions, Jerry.

Avri, Loa, and I originally had an ambitious plan to "force" these 
requirements on the whole of the Routing Area. This seemed to us to be the 
right scale for such an experiment, but I think folks were (probably 
reasonably) a bit shy of making such a change on such a large scale.

My next proposal was to bring this forward as 3933 process experiment 
limited to the PCE working group. However, various process experts and some 
of the IESG warned us off saying that such a process experiment was really 
targeted at a larger proving ground and that 3933 was too heavy for what we 
had in mind. They suggested that if we were limiting ourselves to just the 
PCE working group and if the working group supported the idea, we should 
just get on with it.

So that is what this revision of the draft is trying to do.

My hope is that valuable lessons will be learned resulting either in this 
idea being refined or abandoned. This should give other working group chairs 
(and hopefully the IESG) some helpful input. At the same time, I hope that 
the output of the PCE working group will be suitably improved by following 
these guidelines.

I know that the Ops ADs are considering a separate effort at the next IETF 
that will look at offering guidance to the authors of *all* I-Ds on how they 
can give suitable considerations to Manageability, and I am sure that we 
will be trying to keep in synch.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
To: "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Feed-back 
requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

Thanks,
Jerry

---

From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:07:42 -0600

Thanks Adrian, very helpful.

Yes, I support adopting this ID as a WG document and the need for a
manageability section in WG drafts.

Regards,
Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:39 PM
To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; JP Vasseur; [email-masked]
Cc: Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back

Avri, Loa, and I originally had an ambitious plan to "force" these 
requirements on the whole of the Routing Area. This seemed to us to be
the 
right scale for such an experiment, but I think folks were (probably 
reasonably) a bit shy of making such a change on such a large scale.

My next proposal was to bring this forward as 3933 process experiment 
limited to the PCE working group. However, various process experts and
some 
of the IESG warned us off saying that such a process experiment was
really 
targeted at a larger proving ground and that 3933 was too heavy for what
we 
had in mind. They suggested that if we were limiting ourselves to just
the 
PCE working group and if the working group supported the idea, we should

just get on with it.

My hope is that valuable lessons will be learned resulting either in
this 
idea being refined or abandoned. This should give other working group
chairs 
(and hopefully the IESG) some helpful input. At the same time, I hope
that 
the output of the PCE working group will be suitably improved by
following 
these guidelines.

I know that the Ops ADs are considering a separate effort at the next
IETF 
that will look at offering guidance to the authors of *all* I-Ds on how
they 
can give suitable considerations to Manageability, and I am sure that we

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
To: "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Feed-back 

Thanks,
Jerry

---

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:11:43 -0000

Hello all, I'd like to add my support to making this a WG document. It's
a good start and should fuel proactive discussions re: Manageability for
new drafts.   

Thanks,
Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 04 January 2007 21:08
To: Adrian Farrel; JP Vasseur; [email-masked]
Cc: Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG
Feed-backrequiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

Regards,
Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:39 PM
To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; JP Vasseur; [email-masked]
Cc: Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back

Avri, Loa, and I originally had an ambitious plan to "force" these
requirements on the whole of the Routing Area. This seemed to us to be
the right scale for such an experiment, but I think folks were (probably
reasonably) a bit shy of making such a change on such a large scale.

My next proposal was to bring this forward as 3933 process experiment
limited to the PCE working group. However, various process experts and
some of the IESG warned us off saying that such a process experiment was
really targeted at a larger proving ground and that 3933 was too heavy
for what we had in mind. They suggested that if we were limiting
ourselves to just the PCE working group and if the working group
supported the idea, we should

just get on with it.

My hope is that valuable lessons will be learned resulting either in
this idea being refined or abandoned. This should give other working
group chairs (and hopefully the IESG) some helpful input. At the same
time, I hope that the output of the PCE working group will be suitably
improved by following these guidelines.

I know that the Ops ADs are considering a separate effort at the next
IETF that will look at offering guidance to the authors of *all* I-Ds on
how they can give suitable considerations to Manageability, and I am
sure that we

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
To: "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Feed-back

Thanks,
Jerry

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:28:58 -0500

Dear WG,

We had so far a few (and positive) feed-backs, it would be nice to  
get more feed-back on this (in particular several of the usual  
contributors haven't expressed their opinion).

Thanks.

Happy New Year to all of you.

JP.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
> Date: January 3, 2007 1:12:59 PM EST
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: "Dan \(\(Dan\)\) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [Pce] WG Feed-back required on draft-farrel-pce- 
> manageability-requirements-02.txt
>
> Dear WG,
>
> introduced by Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 2006  
> (for reference, see the WG minutes) since then two revisions of  
> draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements have been published  
> based on the comments received from members of the PCE WG and OPS ADs.
>
> support from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to Dan for  
> his help). The were some concerns from Lou that have been addressed  
> in the latest revision of the draft.
>
> Furthermore, there are several IDs in the works for which the  
> authors agreed to add a manageability section and "experiment" the  
> process that may have to be tuned as we'll move forward.
>

---

From: "Zafar Ali \(zali\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:50:32 -0500

Hi JP, et al- 
 
Having Manageability section to ALL IETF ID-es is a good idea. I wish
this can be push even beyond this doc. I recall Adrian was pushing it
across the spectrum, but don't know what happens. 
 
In favor, as you can guess. 
 
Thanks
 
Regards... Zafar 

________________________________

	From: Jean Philippe Vasseur (jvasseur) 
	Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 2:29 PM
	To: [email-masked]
	Subject: Fwd: [Pce] WG Feed-back required
ondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

	Dear WG, 

	We had so far a few (and positive) feed-backs, it would be nice
to get more feed-back on this (in particular several of the usual
contributors haven't expressed their opinion).

	Thanks.

	JP.

	Begin forwarded message:

		From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
		Date: January 3, 2007 1:12:59 PM EST
		To: [email-masked]
		Cc: "Dan \(\(Dan\)\) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
		Subject: [Pce] WG Feed-back required on
draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

		Dear WG,

		The idea of adding a Manageability section to IDs was
first introduced by Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 2006
(for reference, see the WG minutes) since then two revisions of
draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements have been published based on
the comments received from members of the PCE WG and OPS ADs.

		My recollection of the discussions about this ID is a
general good support from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to
Dan for his help). The were some concerns from Lou that have been
addressed in the latest revision of the draft.

		Furthermore, there are several IDs in the works for
which the authors agreed to add a manageability section and "experiment"
the process that may have to be tuned as we'll move forward.

		Because, this ID does have some implication on (current
and future) PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a
WG document.

		Thanks.

		JP.

---

From: "Dean Cheng \(dcheng\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:31:04 -0800

I supported this as a WG I-D. 

Dean

> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:13 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Pce] WG Feed-back required 
> introduced by Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 
> 2006 (for reference, see the WG minutes) since then two 
> revisions of draft- farrel-pce-manageability-requirements 
> have been published based on the comments received from 
> members of the PCE WG and OPS ADs.
> 
> My recollection of the discussions about this ID is a general 
> good support from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to 
> Dan for his help). The were some concerns from Lou that have 
> been addressed in the latest revision of the draft.
> 
> authors agreed to add a manageability section and 
> "experiment" the process that may have to be tuned as we'll 
> move forward.
> 
> Because, this ID does have some implication on (current and 
> future) PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID 
> as a WG document.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:20:37 +0100

hi j-p

the doc is ok as long as it refers to the manageability of the protocol 
that is detailed in the corr. i-d - we can express several concerns 
whether such details are useful or not ... practicing will tell us

a couple of comments though

-- concerns on section 3.3 - it will for each document open the pandora 
box of the protocol dependencies - these should remain at most 
illustrative otherwise 

o) becoming restrictive with respect to the protocol applicability - 

o) potentially impacting and/or assuming other protocol(s) behaviour

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

-- 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

-- 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

 hope it will help
- d.

JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
03/01/2007 19:12
 
        To:     [email-masked]
        cc:     "Dan \(\(Dan\)\) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
        Subject:        [Pce] WG Feed-back required on 
draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

Dear WG,

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:26:25 +0100

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.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:35:21 -0000

Hi Tom,

> not other SDOs - outside these working groups would recognise).

Hmmm.
I'm a bit disappointed if folks don't recognise the term Management Plane, 
but I believe you.

Yes, I see no reason why a future revision of this I-D within the working 
group should not include a summary of FCAPS to set the context and explain 
why there are requirements.

> the wood will be lost amongst the trees.

I guess you should see this as iterating towards the right thing. We started 
with a baren plane with no trees. Now we have a lot of trees. You would like 
to be able to perform some taxonomy and dendritic analysis - fair enough. We 
will get there.

But it sounds like you welcome the general principle, and that we can use 
this I-D as a basis for WG progress.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:15:34 +0100

Yes I support this being adopted as a WG I-D.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>; "JP Vasseur" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back
requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt

---

From: "Matthew R. Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:01:51 -0500

JP, Adrian, WG

I strongly support this document as PCE WG item and for general WG draft
use.

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.

Matthew Meyer

On 1/12/07, JP Vasseur <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> We had so far a few (and positive) feed-backs, it would be nice to get more
> feed-back on this (in particular several of the usual contributors haven't
> expressed their opinion).
>
> Thanks.
>
> The idea of adding a Manageability section to IDs was first introduced by
> Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 2006 (for reference, see the WG
> minutes) since then two revisions of
> draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements have been
> published based on the comments received from members of the PCE WG and OPS
> ADs.
>
> My recollection of the discussions about this ID is a general good support
> from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to Dan for his help). The were
> some concerns from Lou that have been addressed in the latest revision of
> the draft.
>
> Furthermore, there are several IDs in the works for which the authors agreed
> to add a manageability section and "experiment" the process that may have to
> be tuned as we'll move forward.
>
> Because, this ID does have some implication on (current and future) PCE WG
> IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a WG document.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>