Re: Network Management Requirements (was: Re: Questions on the Draft)

["John G. Waclawsky" <jgw@cisco.com>]

Hi James, my comments in-line.                  Regards  John

kempf wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> >James, I noticed that the draft seems to lack specific requirements for the
> >possible role of  the mobile stations to aid remote and distributed
> >management of themselves, networks and services For example, the ability to
> >load a new application on the MS or a new TCP stack or dynamically change
> >the operating parameters of OS functions or TCP stack (e.g. change the TCP
> >window size to allow for different serve levels, dynamically adjust RTTs,..
> >etc.). This might be included under other topics but you may want to
> >specifically spelling out requirements in this area.      Regards  John
> >
>
> Yes, good observation.
>
> The draft seems to be fairly weak on specific requirements around
> management,  provisioning, etc. It only says "use standard IETF
> network management protocols" which is fine in as far as it goes, but
> it is entirely possible for, say, one vendor to define a MIB one
> way and another to define it another way, so that managment is
> incompatible even though SNMP is used. So additionally, I think
> there needs to be a requirement for standardized managed object
> definitions.
>
> Also, as you point out, there is nothing about service provisioning on the
> phone, though I wonder exactly what role IETF might have there. There
> has been some talk about using Java in this role, and I suppose IETF
> could define something like ICAP for phones that would allow provisioning,
> or something like that, but it is not clear to me whether this would
> make any sense.

Are we recommending any specific protocols to do this? Do we need a new one or
an extension to an old one? The problem becomes interesting as users move from
one service provider to another and standardization appears to be needed. I
believe, requirements in this area need to be fleshed out. I can see this as a
rising issue on the horizon.                Regards  John

> I think it also might make sense to explicitly mention interoperable
> management of radio access networks. I'm told that, despite common
> radio access protocols in UTRAN for example, radio access networks
> are typically one vendor solutions because network managment is
> not interoprable. Having interoperable network management would
> at least give operators the option of mixing and matching.
>
>                 jak