Re: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt

[avri@acm.org]

On 7 nov 2004, at 11.17, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> not sure if authors/and alex are on ops-area list, so I cc: them]
>
> It is an interesting read.
> I also know that various people think that we have too many "mandatory"
> sections already. So how does that jive?

if i think about the number in general, i would probably agree there 
were too many.

if i think about them from the point of utility, i would probably 
decide that they were all necessary.

> Has the RTG community reacted
> already? In principle I think it would be good to have sections on
> "Considerations for managebility".
>
> I then wonder, why would this just apply to the docs from the RTG area?

from my personal point of view, i would think it should apply to all 
drafts.  i tend to see the rtg area as a first experiment.

> W.r.t. sect 2.2, I am not sure I understand the differene between
> the first 2 bullets.

i think this is a error and what we meant to distinguish was
- information models
- type of data modeling to be used  (ie. is this a mib, xsd, pib ...)

i don't actually think we are recommending that there be actual data 
modules in the manageability section.  i certainly don think that is 
necessary.

> W.r.t. sect 3.x, you may want to reference RFC3444.

thanks

a.