I did not manage to get to this before heading out on maternity leave, so I will change my ballot to abstain and have you all handle it as you wish.
Thanks, Alissa On Feb 23, 2015, at 5:11 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Alissa, > > Let me try to address the issues that you are raising. The coman team worked > as a non-WG team for about 2-3 years, and only at the last phase of the work > decided to send the two resulting informational documents to the OPSAWG for a > broader review and exposure, at the advice of our AD. The two documents are > informational, one describes the use cases and the second one the > requirements for the broader space discussed by the use cases related to > management of networks with constrained devices.. One of the conclusions of > the work is that we do not believe that there is one single solution that > would fit all use cases, this there is no single set of mandatory > requirements that apply to all the use cases. No follow-up work is planned in > OPS. We feel however that the two informational documents will be useful for > further reference for these teams or WGs that try to build management > solutions for one or more of the use cases. > > In order to make the goals of the document more clear we suggest the > following edits: > > In Abstract: > > OLD: > > This document provides a problem statement, deployment and management > topology options as well as potential requirements for the management > of networks where constrained devices are involved. > > NEW: > > This document provides a problem statement, deployment and management > topology options as well as requirements addressing the different use cases > of > the management of networks where constrained devices are involved. > > In Section 1.1: > > OLD: > > This document provides a problem statement and lists potential > requirements for the management of a network with constrained > devices. Section 1.3 and Section 1.5 describe different topology > options for the networking and management of constrained devices. > Section 2 provides a problem statement on the issue of the management > of networked constrained devices. Section 3 lists requirements on > the management of applications and networks with constrained devices. > Note that the requirements listed in Section 3 have been separated > from the context in which they may appear. Depending on the concrete > circumstances, an implementer may decide to address a certain > relevant subset of the requirements. > > The use cases in the context of networks with constrained devices can > be found in the companion document [COM-USE]. > > NEW: > > This document provides a problem statement and lists requirements for the > different use cases of management of a network with constrained > devices. Section 1.3 and Section 1.5 describe different topology > options for the networking and management of constrained devices. > Section 2 provides a problem statement on the issue of the management > of networked constrained devices. Section 3 lists requirements on > the management of applications and networks with constrained devices. > Note that the requirements listed in Section 3 have been separated > from the context in which they may appear. Depending on the concrete > circumstances, an implementer may decide to address a certain > relevant subset of the requirements. > > The use cases in the context of networks with constrained devices can > be found in the companion document [COM-USE]. This informational > document provides a list of objectives for discussions and does not aim > to be a strict requirements document for all use cases. In fact, there > likely > is not a single solution that works equally well for all the use cases. > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:55 AM >> To: The IESG >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-opsawg-coman- >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs- >> 04: (with DISCUSS) >> >> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email >> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory >> paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- >> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss- >> 2Dcriteria.html&d=AwICaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31Oc >> NXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=LRTLiND5zLlekWUmsFoaVKjkrugZ >> M-KnuAq0u86hymQ&s=eJjAd- >> BOQzGyu9hy1bhI6vQIl7xsHAWMzBLsPjwGVPU&e= >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- >> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dopsawg-2Dcoman- >> 2Dprobstate- >> 2Dreqs_&d=AwICaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQ >> zvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=LRTLiND5zLlekWUmsFoaVKjkrugZM- >> KnuAq0u86hymQ&s=KmEim4gFKCTNKbrps2bQskPznlkrThRg- >> bO0gjTvxEM&e= >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I'm putting this in as a DISCUSS in the event that the authors/WG want to >> discuss it or that I'm just missing some context, but I will happily move >> to ABSTAIN if there is no appetite for such discussion -- I see no need >> to block the document from advancing on the basis of my comments. >> >> It's really hard to tell how the "requirements" listed in this document >> are intended to be used. In fact, it seems incorrect to call them >> "requirements" at all -- in the sense of somehow being "required" -- >> given the following: >> >> This document provides a problem statement and lists potential >> requirements for the management of a network with constrained >> devices. ... Depending on the concrete >> circumstances, an implementer may decide to address a certain >> relevant subset of the requirements. >> ... >> This document in general >> does not recommend the realization of any subset of the described >> requirements. As such this document avoids selecting any of the >> requirements as mandatory to implement. A device might be able to >> provide only a particular selected set of requirements and might not >> be capable to provide all requirements in this document. On the >> other hand a device vendor might select a specific relevant subset of >> the requirements to implement. >> >> It's hard to see how the approach described above will contribute towards >> useful standardization. The "requirements" seem more like a laundry list >> of all the properties that a management architecture, management >> protocols, networks of constrained devices, and/or individual >> implementations might find desirable. >> >> This also makes me wonder how the WG intends for these "requirements" >> to >> be used. What is the next step as far as standardization goes? To design >> the "management architecture" that is mentioned? Or the "management >> protocols" that are mentioned -- one or more, working together or >> separately? Or to consider how existing management protocols can be >> repurposed for constrained networks (which is sort of hinted at in >> section 2, but not stated explicitly), to meet some undefined subset of >> the listed "requirements"? >> >> I think publishing a laundry list of desirable properties is ok if people >> find value in it, but I'm having trouble seeing how this document >> specifies either a problem statement or requirements that will somehow >> contribute to standardization efforts in the future. >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
