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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lisa,

Thank you for your review. 

Please allow me to respond to one of your comments. 





> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:apps-discuss-
> [e-mail]] 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