Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 06:35:53PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Juergen,
> 
> Thanks for your careful feedback, and suggestions.
> I specifically like the fact that you cared to propose some new text.
> 
> Two comments
> >
> >x) I doubt these are in any way practically relevant nor am I sure
> >    about the support agreement argument. This neither RFC3165 nor
> >    RFC4011 seem to be used in practice, I would rather drop these
> >    three paragraphs.
> >
> >    OLD:
> >
> >    [RFC3165] supports the use of user-written scripts to delegate
> >    management functionality.
> >
> >    Policy Based Management MIB [RFC4011] defines objects that enable
> >    policy-based monitoring using SNMP, using a scripting language, and a
> >    script execution environment.
> >
> >    Few vendors have implemented MIB modules that support scripting.
> >    Some vendors consider running user-developed scripts within the
> >    managed device as a violation of support agreements.
> >
> >    NEW:
> 
> BC>  Not sure if "This neither RFC3165 nor RFC4011 seem to be used in
> practice" is a good argument.
> So I would rather keep, as this RFC is supposed to be an inventory.

I think you told me several times it is not inventory. If this is
supposed to be an inventory, then I must say the document is somewhat
incomplete. That said, I am religious since a reference to 3165 is
actually good for my h-index (but otherwise likely more confusing
readers than helping them ;-).

> >z) Why do we have text for something that according to RFC 6248 has
> >    seen no usage?
> >
> >    OLD:
> >
> >    The IPPM working group has defined [BCP108][RFC4148] "IP Performance
> >    Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry".  The IANA-assigned registry
> >    contains an initial set of OBJECT IDENTITIES to currently defined
> >    metrics in the IETF as well as defines the rules for adding IP
> >    Performance Metrics that are defined in the future.  However, the
> >    current registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
> >    detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics.  Due to the ambiguities
> >    between the current metrics registrations and the metrics used, and
> >    the apparent non-adoption of the registry in practice, it has been
> >    proposed to reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete.
> >
> >    Note: With the publication of [RFC6248] the latest IANA registry for
> >    IPPM metrics and [RFC4148] have been declared Obsolete and IANA
> >    prevents registering new metrics.  Actual users can continue using
> >    the current registry and its contents.
> >
> >    NEW:
> 
> BC>  Since this decision [RFC6248] is brand new, I would rather keep the second
> paragraph. A little bit of history would not hurt.
> 

I remain unconvinced that pointing readers to stuff that is not used
(and where it is even documented that it is not used) is helpful. A
historic perspective of the development of NM standards I think is a
different document.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>