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

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Thanks Bert,

The ops-area is (of course) on our list of people to consult if/when the rtg-area gives us
the go-ahead for this work. Comments and feedback is welcome at any time.

> [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?

Many libertarians think we have too many laws :-)
Laws are necessary when we cannot trust society to behave in an adult way in the absence
of laws.

> Has the RTG community reacted already?

No, not really.

> 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?

That is, indeed, a question we will raise.
Arguably, we might use rtg to prototype this work, and extend it later.

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

Good catch.
The first bullet was intended as a replacement for the second (but I screwed the edit).
Note that the first bullet is slightly more general than the second.

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

A useful reference. Thanks.

A