Dear all,
Here is a new version of the "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management in IETF Specifications" draft
Name: draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis
Revision: 01
Title: Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in IETF
Specifications
Date: 2025-05-12
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 38
URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-01.txt
Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/
HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-01.html
HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis
Diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-01
Abstract:
New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due
consideration of the functionality needed to operate and manage the
protocols. Retrofitting operations and management is sub-optimal.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors and
reviewers of documents that define new protocols or protocol
extensions regarding aspects of operations and management that should
be considered.
This document obsoletes RFC 5706, replacing it completely and
updating it with new operational and management techniques and
mechanisms, and introduces a requirement for an “Operational and
Management Considerations” section in Internet-Drafts, before they
are progressed as publication as RFCs.
What we have addressed in this version. - Update title to better reflect
the intent/scope - Clarify the obsoleting of RFC5706 - Soften the MIB
part + IESG statement about MIB - More guidance on the importance of
data models. - Reword based on the recent erratum - perform an
end-to-end editorial and RFC-style and update - the Appendix "Appendix
A. Operations and Management Review Checklist"
<https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues/8>
is moved to a different locationSee
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20state%3Aclosed
for the details.
There are some open issues at
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues Your
feedback is welcome on this draft version, or on the open issues. We
plan to submit a new draft version by mid June. Regards, Benoit (on
behalf of the authors Ran, Adrian, Carlos, Joe, Samier, Thomas, and I,
and under Med's supervision)
On 4/8/2025 8:09 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Dear all,
Sorry for sending this email to all OPS WGs (bcc'ed), however, we need
to reach all of you in the OPS area.
Below, you will see our AD's guidance to update the RFC 5706
"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols
and Protocol Extensions"
Yes, it's about time to update this RFC, published in 2009, with the
ideal end goal to have "Manageability Considerations" section all IETF
drafts. As Med mentioned on the OPSAWG mailing list: "We need to find
the right balance between providing clear guidance while avoiding some
rigidity. We will explore that path together with other areas."
Med will be sponsoring this document, as BCP, while RFC 5706 was
published as Informational.
Today, we passed the first milestone, with the publication of:
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-00.txt has been
successfully submitted by Benoit Claise and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis
Revision: 00
Title: Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New
Protocols and Protocol Extensions
Date: 2025-04-08
Group: Individual Submission
Pages: 36
URL:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-00.txt
Status:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/
HTML:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-00.html
HTMLized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis
Abstract:
New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due
consideration of the functionality needed to operate and manage the
protocols. Retrofitting operations and management is sub-optimal.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors and
reviewers of documents that define new protocols or protocol
extensions regarding aspects of operations and management that should
be considered.
This document obsoletes RFC 5706.
What are the diffs compared to RFC5706? At this stage, not much: "same
content as RFC5706. The only changes are the authors list and document
track", as Med mentioned below.
As this document is AD-sponsored, it now appears under
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ag/opsarea/documents/
What do we expect from all of you?
- please review the plan below. Feel free to comment.
- we would like to know about some specific questions/open
issues/improvements regarding the "Manageability Considerations"for
your WG
- PLEASE don't reply to all, as the discussion should happen on the
OSPAWG mailing list. If you prefer, feel free to reply only to the
contributors, in cc.
Next, we will set up a github repo, populate the open issues, and
start resolving them.
Regards, Benoit on behalf of the contributors.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [OPSAWG]RFC5706-Refresh: Action Plan
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 06:22:36 +0000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Hi all,
First of all, many thanks to all the expressions of interest and
comments sent on the list and also in private for this work.
As indicated early this week, please find below the proposed action
plan for the refresh of the “Guidelines for Considering Operations and
Management”:
* I will be sponsoring the document with joint LCs in all OPS WGs
with the expected outcome to produce a ** BCP **
* The reference discussion venue will be OPSDIR + OPSAWG
* Week of April 7th:
o Authors to submit draft-ietf-opsarea-rfc5706bis-00 with the
same content as RFC5706. The only changes are the authors list
and document track. See attached.
o Authors to send a call for inputs to all OPS WGs + reminder of
the discussion venue.
o OPS AD to send a note to all ADs to seek for cross-area inputs.
* Authors to release revisions that address the initial list of
change items and any comment from the call for inputs.
o More clarity on the terminology and leverage the work led by
Adrian in NMOP
o IM part
o More guidance on the importance of DMs
o Soften the MIB part + IESG statement in MIBs
o Add more YANG
o Generalize the approach in RFC6123/Manageability
Considerations Section in all IETF Specs
* IETF#123 Madrid: Present status and pending issues in OPSAREA
Session. A slot is already booked for this.
* Post IETF#123
o Authors to send reminder of call for inputs to all OPS WGs or
follow-ups to specific points raised there in the first call.
o Authors to release revisions to address pending issues and any
received comments.
* 09/2025: OPS AD to issue a LC shared in all OPS WGs.
* 10/2025: IETF LC
Here is the initial authors list:
* Benoît Claise
* Joe Clarke
* Adrian Farrel
* Thomas Graf
* Samier Barguil
* Carlos Pignataro
* Ran Chen
@authors: Please find attached a -00 of the text (md, xml, txt). I
have a preference for the use of md + set a gitbub repo but I let you
self-organize. You are holding the pen now :-)
Please let me know if you have any comment.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Med
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
