Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03

The history of this draft goes back to a commitment made to the OPS AD (Benoit Claise) about documenting how MANETs are managed.  For one reason or another, the WG produced this draft, specific to OLSRv2.  It is clear that the draft was written to satisfy the commitment.

In talking to the OPS AD about it, we agree that the content is too constrained, and that it doesn’t address what his original expectations were: a wider more comprehensive look at MANETs in a protocol agnostic fashion, addressing general scenarios and identifying not just current solutions, but potential gaps as well.  Because of that, we have decided not to move this document forward.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
(manet) to consider the following document:
- 'Snapshot of OLSRv2-Routed MANET Management'
  as Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-06-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are
  typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as
  rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers
  running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)
  and its constituent MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP).
  Apart from pre-deployment management for setting up IP addresses and
  security related credentials, OLSRv2 only needs routers to agree one
  single configuration parameter (called "C").  Other parameters for
  tweaking network performance may be determined during operation of
  the network, and need not be the same in all routers.  This, using
  MIB modules and related management protocols such as SNMP (or
  possibly other, less "chatty", protocols).  In addition, for
  debugging purposes, monitoring data and performance related counters,
  as well as notifications ("traps") can be sent to the Network
  Management System (NMS) via standardized management protocols.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Document shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-management-snapshot-03

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

        Publication as Informational is requested. This is indicated in the title
        page header.

        From the document abstract

  This document describes how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are
  typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as
  rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers
  running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)
  and its constituent MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP).

        This is informational, and the document defines no new protocol, or even
        how a protocol should be used, but how these protocols are typically used.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  This document describes how Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANETs) are
  typically managed, in terms of pre-deployment management, as well as
  rationale and means of monitoring and management of MANET routers
  running the Optimized Link State Routing protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)
  and its constituent MANET Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP).
  Apart from pre-deployment management for setting up IP addresses and
  security related credentials, OLSRv2 only needs routers to agree one
  single configuration parameter (called "C").  Other parameters for
  tweaking network performance may be determined during operation of
  the network, and need not be the same in all routers.  This, using
  MIB modules and related management protocols such as SNMP (or
  possibly other, less "chatty", protocols).  In addition, for
  debugging purposes, monitoring data and performance related counters,
  as well as notifications ("traps") can be sent to the Network
  Management System (NMS) via standardized management protocols.

        That is the document abstract. In the document shepherd's words

        MANETs, in particular those using OLSRv2, are, by design, networks
        intended to operate with a maximum degree of autonomy in a possibly
        highly dynamic environment. However they still need some management.
        There is no "one size fits all" approach to managing a MANET, but
        a typical (consistent with reports from various participants)
        approach to managing an OLSRv2-routed MANET is described. The
        document is entirely informative, no suggestion is made as to any
        requirement to follow this practice.

Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

        WG acceptance of the document was strong. Comment since then and
        during the WGLC has however been mostly absent, but the document
        was substantially in its current state at WG acceptance.

Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

        This document does not specify a protocol. There are several OLSRv2
        implementations, as well as implementations of the MIB modules for
        OLSRv2 and NHDP. In addition, there are other, proprietary, management
        interfaces for managing OLSRv2 (e.g., one via a JSON representation).
        There have been good discussions of the document among the WG participants,
        in general (reflected in the acknowledgements section). There have been no
        specific MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews done.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

        The Document Shepherd is Christopher Dearlove.
        The Responsible Area Director is Adrian Farrel.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

        The document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the
        WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
        The document shepherd believes that this version of the document (-03,
        the WGLC-ed version being -02) is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

        The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
        breadth of the reviews of this document up to WG acceptance.
        Reviews after that point have been limited, but no major
        changes have been made in that time.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

        This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
        AD and IESG processing.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

        The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

        Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring
        disclosure.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

        No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

        The WG consensus behind this document appears solid, although not
        vocal since WG acceptance of the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

        No appeals have been threatened.
        No extreme discontent has been indicated.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

        The document shepherd found some nits (typographic, minor editorial)
        in the WGLC-ed -02 version, which have been rectified in the -03
        version. IDNIT returns no errors and no warnings.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

        This document does not require any of these reviews.
        MIBs are within the subject matter, but this is not a MIB specification,
        so MIB expertise would be welcome but not essential.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

        All references have been identified as informative.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

        There are no normative references in the document.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

        There are no normative references in the document.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

        This document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.

        The document has no actions for IANA (as indicated in the IANA section,
        which is to be removed by the RFC editor).

Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.

        The document has no actions for IANA.

Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.

        The document has no actions for IANA.

Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

        The document has no actions for IANA.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

        The document has no actions for IANA.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

        No formal language is contained in the document.