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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

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.


>
>
> 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.

Thanks again.

Regards, Benoit