I think that this draft should start from a broader perspective of what management is before getting into what I see as the details, especially if the intent is to roll it out across other WG. I think that that is particularly important in PCE because of the specialised usage of the term management that may crop up (as in the individual ccamp I-D that was entitled 'GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Transfer of Ownership of Label Switched Paths Between the Management and Control Planes' which is not a use of the word management that I expect many in the IETF - but not other SDOs - outside these working groups would recognise).
I might use a model of management as made up of:- Security, Accounting, Configuration, Fault, Performance; of which, Security is already accounted for, Accounting is out of scope and the remaining detail items are structured under one of the other three. I am concerned that, without a paragraph or two of overview along these lines, the wood will be lost amongst the trees. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "JP Vasseur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:12 PM Subject: [Pce] WG Feed-back required ondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt > Dear WG, > > The idea of adding a Manageability section to IDs was first > introduced by Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 2006 (for > reference, see the WG minutes) since then two revisions of draft- > farrel-pce-manageability-requirements have been published based on > the comments received from members of the PCE WG and OPS ADs. > > My recollection of the discussions about this ID is a general good > support from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to Dan for his > help). The were some concerns from Lou that have been addressed in > the latest revision of the draft. > > Furthermore, there are several IDs in the works for which the authors > agreed to add a manageability section and "experiment" the process > that may have to be tuned as we'll move forward. > > Because, this ID does have some implication on (current and future) > PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a WG document. > > Thanks. > > JP. > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
