Technical Summary
New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due
consideration of functionality needed to operate and manage the
protocols. Retrofitting operations and management is sub-optimal.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors and
reviewers of documents defining new protocols or protocol extensions,
about covering aspects of operations and management that should be
considered.
Working Group Summary
There was consensus in the working group to publish this document.
Document Quality
The document was reviewed by a number of experts with operational and
management experience. An IETF Last Call was run and comments
received during the Last Call were incorporated in the final
version.
Personnel
Scott Bradner is the Document Shepherd for this document. Dan
Romascanu is the Responsible Area Director.
RFC Editor Note
1. In Section 1.2:
OLD:
This document discusses the importance of considering operations and
management by setting forth a list of guidelines and a checklist of
questions to consider,
NEW:
This document discusses the importance of considering operations and
management by setting forth a list of guidelines and a checklist of
questions to consider (see Appendix A),
2. In Section 7
s/Adrian Farrell/Adrian Farrel/
3. In Section 1.6:
OLD:
This document is a set of guidelines
based on current practices of protocol designers and operators.
This document does not describe requirements, so the key words from
RFC2119 have no place here.
NEW:
This informational document is a set of guidelines
based on current practices of **some** protocol designers and
operators. This
document is biased toward router operations and management and some
advice
may not be directly applicable to protocols with a different purpose,
such as
application server protocols. This document **does not** describe
interoperability requirements, so the capitalized key words from
RFC2119 do not apply here.
4. Add in Section 4:
This document does not describe interoperability requirements, but rather
describes practices that are useful to be followed in dealing with
manageability aspects in the IETF documents, so the capitalized keywords
from RFC2119 do not apply here. Any occurrence of words like 'must' or
'should' needs to be interpreted only in the context of their natural
English language meaning.
5. In section 1.5:
OLD:
SNMP [RFC3410],
SYSLOG [RFC5424],
RADIUS [RFC2865],
DIAMETER [RFC3588],
NETCONF [RFC4741],
IPFIX [RFC5101].
NEW:
Simple Network Management Protocol - SNMP [RFC3410],
SYSLOG [RFC5424],
Remote Authentication Dial In User Service - RADIUS [RFC2865],
DIAMETER [RFC3588],
Network Configuration Protocol - NETCONF [RFC4741],
IP Flow Information Export - IPFIX [RFC5101].
6. in Section 1.4
OLD:
One issue discussed was the user-unfriendliness of the binary format
of SNMP [RFC3410] and COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)
[RFC3084], and it was recommended that the IETF explore an XML-based
Structure of Management Information, and an XML-based protocol for
configuration.
NEW:
One issue discussed was the user-unfriendliness of the binary format
of SNMP [RFC3410] and Common Open Policy Service (COPS) Usage for
Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)[RFC3084], and it was recommended that
the IETF explore an XML-based Structure of Management Information,
and an XML-based protocol for configuration.
7. in Section 3.1:
OLD:
Other Standard Development Organizations (e.g. DMTF, TMF)
NEW:
Other Standard Development Organizations (e.g. the Distributed Management
Task Force - DMTF, the Tele-Management Forum - TMF)
8. In Section 3.3.2:
OLD:
Would some threshold-based mechanisms, such as RMON events/alarms or
the EVENT-MIB, be useable to help determine error conditions?
NEW:
Would some threshold-based mechanisms, such as Remote Monitoring (RMON)
events/alarms or the EVENT-MIB, be useable to help determine error
conditions?
9. In Section 3.4:
OLD:
There are two parts to this: 1. An NMS system could optimize access
control lists (ACLs) for performance reasons
NEW:
There are two parts to this: 1. A Network Management System (NMS) could
optimize access control lists (ACLs) for performance reasons