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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

Ok, fine on my side.

Regards, Benoit.
> 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
>