[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt
- To: David B Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
- Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt
- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:00:20 +0100
- Cc: 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>, "'Loa Andersson (E-mail)'" <loa.andersson@utfors.se>, "'Avri Doria (E-mail)'" <avri@acm.org>, "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "'Ops-Area (E-mail)'" <ops-area@ops.ietf.org>, "'Alex Zinin (E-mail)'" <zinin@psg.com>
- In-reply-to: <E1CS44D-0002hj-SP@psg.com>
- References: <008601c4c787$0fe9cef0$a7878182@Puppy> <E1CS44D-0002hj-SP@psg.com>
- Reply-to: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 08:47:14PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote:
> I disagree that the S in FCAPS manageability is already addressed by
> Security Considerations.
> Considering security for a technology and for the security of the
> management of the technology are different topics.
I am not sure the S if FCAPS is restricted to "Management Security".
Having said that, I do not believe that structuring the management
considerations section according to FCAPS is terrible useful. I think
this section is only useful if it is short and sharp and explains
in very abstract terms which management activities are envisioned
for a given protocol or how a protocol fits into existing management
infrastructures.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany