[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Benoit,

Thanks!

In line...

Adrian

> Interesting idea. Here is my feedback
> - It would be nice to have this "Manageability Considerations" section
> part of all protocol drafts.

Maybe. Probably.

Actually we are proposing to prototype this pretty cautiously. Probably starting with one
draft, then one WG, then one area.

It is quite posisble that the manageability considerations for different areas are
somewhat different, so we have to be careful about generalising.

> - If this section is only composed of references to other documents
> (like MIBs), I think this is acceptable.
>    If the documents are not yet published yet, a quick and simple
> description of what they should do is acceptable.
>    The goal here is to try to keep this section easy-to-write and short:
> thinking about the manageability problems at the protocol design phase
> is already finding a beginning of a solution.

Agree.

> - You use the term manageability a lot. This is a generic term; it means
> different things to different persons.
> A breakdown per FCAPS under the "Manageability Considerations" section
> would be nice. Or simply per FCAP, as the "security considerations"
> section is already taken care of.
> For example.
>
>     Fault: the following notifications should be provided...
>     Configuration: out of the scope of this protocol
>     Accounting: a way of providing the following counters should be
>     provided...
>     Performance: ...

Good points.
We certainly need to come to Ops for help converting our vague word into some concrete
thoughts

Cheers,
Adrian