Hi,
Benoit -
I think there's a more basic question. What is "ops" in this context and how do we as the IETF or OPSArea
expect to represent it to "non-ops"? What's the desired outcome and audience - just to give those working
within other areas of the IETF better guidance on tools? That sounds more like the operative word is "tools"
or "management" not ops.
Good clarification. I meant "tools" or "management" , i.e. protocols and
data models
If you are instead referring to broader operational feedback outside of IETF,
that asks a second question - is IETF still the right venue for this? Do we
have the credibility and experience? There are other initiatives aimed at
providing feedback from operations (BCOP, the *NOG community, Deploy 360, etc)
that have better operator participation than IETF, so I'd be hesitant to
reinvent the wheel here.
If the main goal is to update guidance more consistently and frequently based
on what tools are in common use, you'd get better results from surveying a much
wider community periodically - e.g. publishing a survey on *NOG lists, and
using that to inform your results.
Right, if we give guidance only based what is used today, we will never
provide guidance for new tools.
Your other fundamental question seems to be - how do we make IETF
recommendations, discussions of pros/cons for different tools and solutions,
etc more accessible for those who don't really fancy reading RFCs? Most of your
examples seem to indicate that we'd be better with some sort of system that
pulls the relevant info out of multiple RFCs and presents them in one place
based on the subject, rather than expecting people to find the relevant
document(s) and then follow a chain of document, updated document, updated
updated document, obsoleted section, erratum, etc to synthesize the actual
current recommendation from all of the pieces. It's a real issue, but one much
larger than OpsArea.
Exactly, this is what I would like to (try to) solve ... for OPS.
Regards, Benoit
Wes George
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:06 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Dave Thaler
Subject: [OPSAWG] OPS guidance to the non-OPS community
Dear all,
During the OPSAWG/OPSAREA meeting, I will be addressing one issue that
is now on the top of my mind: OPS guidance to the non-OPS community.
Problem 1:
How do we share our OPS knowledge? How do we advice which OPS tools
(NETCONF, SNMP, AAA, ping, syslog, IPFIX, etc...) the community should
be using?
On regular basis, I have to provide these advice
How can we share this knowledge?
This is the perfect job for an OPS advisor, but one OPS advisor in all
WGs doesn't scale.
Problem 2:
What are the OPS recommendations for future developments?
It might appear as the same problem as 1, but the audience is different.
Here, we speak about new charters for example.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
any printout.
.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
