Re: [OPSAWG] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR reviewofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05

Lisa

I think that the other subtext implicit in this I-D is the  recent change of
meaning of OAM, to exclude Management.  That is, when you nowadays see a
reference to Management, as in the title of this I-D, you have to add, sotto
voce, 'and excluding anything that might be considered part of OAM'.  Sigh:-(

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>; <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Cc: <draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds.all@tools.ietf.org>; <opsawg@ietf.org>;
<iesg@ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR
reviewofdraft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-05

> Hi Lisa,
>
> Thank you for your review.
>
> Please allow me to respond to one of your comments.
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-
> > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
>
>
> > The goal of this document sounds great, and it seems there is some
> > need for a survey or overview of network management standards.  Some
> > sections achieve the document's goals with concise, clear summaries
> > and pointers to outside work.  Other sections of the document suffer
> > from meaningless (e.g. circular or jargon-laden) summaries and awkward
> > explanations, but at least the pointers will still be useful.  I have
> > some concerns about whether the document is comprehensive, because a
> > survey is most useful when it really points to all the prior and
> > relevant work at least in brief.
> >
> > While I am not in a position to notice all the places where the
> > document may have holes in its comprehensiveness, I did note that
> > currently active work was not consistently covered.  The document does
> > not mention or refer to ARMD, BMWG or benchmarking, GROW or BGP
> > Monitoring.  I do not know which of these Ops area WGs are important
> > or actively making progress, but to an Ops outsider they all seem
> > relevant.  It's not as if the document does not cover active work: the
> > document goes into some detail explaining not only the purpose of
> > energy management work going on in the IETF but also some of the
> > challenges of that work (appendix B).  Missing other active WGs'
> > topics seems odd.
> >
>
> [[DR]] As you probably know well the OPS Area activities covers
> Operations and Management. The scope of this document is as you
> correctly point providing an overview of network management standards.
> The WGs you mention - ARMD, BMWG, GROW - belong all to the operational
> part of the area, none develops network management standards (protocols
> or data models). BGP monitoring is realized via a number of means, two
> of them are mentioned in the document (the data model in RFC 4273 in
> section 4.1.3 and the IPFIX IEs in section 4.2.3).
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>