Requirements for manageability in the routing area

Attached please find the manageability requirements draft (now 
expired), describing the experiment going on in the routing area. A 
discussion about manageability requirements (in all IETF areas) is on 
the agenda of the OPS area meeting  today.

Dan

Network Working Group                                      Adrian Farrel
IETF Internet Draft                                   Old Dog Consulting
Proposed Status: Informational
Expires: April 2006                                        Loa Andersson
                                                                Acreo AB

                                                              Avri Doria
                                                                    ETRI

                                                            October 2005

           draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

      Requirements for Manageability Sections in Routing Area Drafts

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware

Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

Hi,

Avri tells me that this idea received some warmish responses in your area 
meeting today. I would certainly welcome some detailed responses if anyone 
has any.

She also says that there was some discussion on the appropriateness of using 
3933 for an experiment in the PCE working group. While I can see that there 
might be a thought that the process experiment would be too heavy for the 
PCE working group, I wonder what objection there could be to the use of the 
experiment.

In fact, the intention of using the experiment is that we want the process 
to eventually be applied more widely. In view of that, we thought that it 
might be advantageous to make the experiment more formal.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
To: <ops-area <at> ops.ietf.org>
Cc: <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>; "Avri Doria" <avri <at> acm.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:08 PM
Subject: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

Attached please find the manageability requirements draft (now
expired), describing the experiment going on in the routing area. A
discussion about manageability requirements (in all IETF areas) is on
the agenda of the OPS area meeting  today.

Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

Adrian,

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:29:40PM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 
> She also says that there was some discussion on the appropriateness of 
> using 3933 for an experiment in the PCE working group. While I can see that 
> there might be a thought that the process experiment would be too heavy for 
> the PCE working group, I wonder what objection there could be to the use of 
> the experiment.

A very simple and pragmatic reason: there is no requirement for a
published RFC to do all this. Producing an RFC will take time & effort
which can be used for other purposes.

I hope this helps,

David Kessens
---

Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

Right, David.
Yeah, the intention is certainly not to create process overhead.
And, in fact, the PCE WG is perfectly capable of adopting this work without 
further input. Actually, that is exactly what is happening.

However...
- I would like this written down so that the PCE WG can solicit input
  from the Ops Area. That means we need an I-D of some form
  (although it doesn't need to progress to become an RFC)
- It would be good to have formal output from the 'experiment' so
  that the wider IETF (and in particular the IESG) can judge the
  results and decide about applying the idea more widely. Of course
  there are many ways to provide this feedback, but it seemed to me
  that 3933 has a suitable framework.

Perhaps what I should do is use the form of 3933 to drive the work 
(including writing an I-D), but never bother pushing it through to be an 
RFC?

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kessens" <david.kessens <at> nokia.com>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca <at> avaya.com>; <ops-area <at> ops.ietf.org>; 
"Avri Doria" <avri <at> acm.org>; "'Jean Philippe Vasseur'" <jvasseur <at> cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

>
> Adrian,

Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> - It would be good to have formal output from the 'experiment' so
> that the wider IETF (and in particular the IESG) can judge the
> results and decide about applying the idea more widely. Of course
> there are many ways to provide this feedback, but it seemed to me
> that 3933 has a suitable framework.

Maybe we should do a staged approach -- after experience from PCE, 
propose a 3933 experiment to be done on more WGs.  Or alternatively, 
do a 3933 experiment _now_ on more WGs (say about 5-10).  Deciding the 
results of a 3933 experiment based on one or two WGs raises the 
question whether the size of "N" is large enough..

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

Agree.
Depends on the next step that is intended.
I would be comfortable with the next step (assuming successful 3933 
completion in PCE) being a widening of the experiment.
I would also be happy if more WGs want to join the initial experiment, but 
that is out of my hands.

A
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas <at> netcore.fi>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>
Cc: "David Kessens" <david.kessens <at> nokia.com>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" 
<dromasca <at> avaya.com>; <ops-area <at> ops.ietf.org>; "Avri Doria" <avri <at> acm.org>; 
"'Jean Philippe Vasseur'" <jvasseur <at> cisco.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area

> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> - It would be good to have formal output from the 'experiment' so
>> that the wider IETF (and in particular the IESG) can judge the
>> results and decide about applying the idea more widely. Of course
>> there are many ways to provide this feedback, but it seemed to me
>> that 3933 has a suitable framework.
>
> Maybe we should do a staged approach -- after experience from PCE, propose 
> a 3933 experiment to be done on more WGs.  Or alternatively, do a 3933 
> experiment _now_ on more WGs (say about 5-10).  Deciding the results of a 
> 3933 experiment based on one or two WGs raises the question whether the 
> size of "N" is large enough..
>