Skip to main content

Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management
draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, benoit.claise@huawei.com, draft-ietf-nmop-terminology@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, nmop-chairs@ietf.org, nmop@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Some Key Terms for Network Fault and Problem Management'
  (draft-ietf-nmop-terminology-23.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Network Management Operations Working
Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nmop-terminology/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document sets out some terms that are fundamental to a common
   understanding of network fault and problem management within the
   IETF.

   The purpose of this document is to bring clarity to discussions and
   other work related to network fault and problem management, in
   particular to YANG models and management protocols that report, make
   visible, or manage network faults and problems.

Working Group Summary

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

[Copied from the Shepherd's report]

No specific controversy, but “normal” divergence of some options for some specific
terms (e.g., root cause). The editor actively sought for more feedback when
the consensus is not clear for some items and always indicated a rationale for
rejecting some proposed changes. No dispute was raised. 

A side meeting was organized in IETF#120 to discuss a set of issues and main outcome
and pending ones were then presented to WG. Authors did a cross check of all adopted
NMOP documents and identified some alignment actions. These actions were discussed
and then agreed and implemented by authors of all NMOP documents.

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?

N/A as it is an informational document.

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Benoît Claise. The
   Responsible Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

RFC Editor Note