Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions
RFC 5706

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

Comment (2009-09-20)
No email
send info
Section 7
s/Farrell/Farrel/  (if you don't mind :-)

The Appendix is not directly referenced in the body of the text, but is actually a rather useful tool. You might include a pointer in Section 1.2 where you say...
> This document discusses the importance of considering operations and
> management by setting forth a list of guidelines and a checklist of
> questions to consider

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2009-09-22)
No email
send info
I found the document to be well-written and informative.

After reading the Abstract, I expected the document itself to describe, explain and give recommendations about considerations for protocol designers and document writers.  There are, indeed, many such considerations.  I have two concerns:

1. Some of the considerations include suggestions or are phrased in the form of a question without giving any recommendations about how to evaluate alternatives.  For example, section 3.3 includes a paragraph about propagation of fault information and asks a question about async notification or polling.  I think it would be helpful to add a few words about whether async notifications/polling is an either/or decision or other issues that the question is intended to point out.  Section 3.3.3 describes root cause analysis without giving any advice about how the consideration of root cause analysis might affect protocol design or operation.

2. Some of the considerations gove advice about operations that are not necessarily directly related to protocol design or documentation.  For example, section 3.3.4 gives advice about fault isolation; is that advice intended to suggest that the protocol designer should include features in the protocol to make fault isolation easy?  Or is it a suggestion to the network administrator about how to debug a network problem?

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

Comment (2009-09-24)
No email
send info
I agree with Cullen that the draft should make it more clear why it's
Informational instead of BCP (e.g., while there's lot of useful
information in it, we don't really have IETF wide consensus that these
guidelines are equally appropriate for all IETF work).

I also agree with Robert that much of the document is about
managing routers/networks, and probably less applicable to applications.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2009-09-22)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 21-Sep-2009 suggests that
  acronyms be expanded on first occurrence and add a references to them
  (if there are documents). This includes: SNMP, SYSLOG, COPS, XML,
  RADIUS, DIAMETER, NETCONF, IPFIX, DMTF, TMF, RMON, and NMS.

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2009-09-24)
No email
send info
I support Cullen's discuss with respect to clarifying language to be consistent with the
intended status of Informational.

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-09-22)
No email
send info
The last paragraph of 2.2 could be generalized - speed is not the only thing that time changes.

The guidance in the last paragraph before section 3.1 starts should also point to the cases where focusing on instumenting servers might mask problems - instrumentation in clients may be the only thing that can provide information to the operator.

In section 3.1 "Information models should come from the protocol WGs" -- not all protocols come from WGs.

"some planned companion documents" is a phrase that will not age well once this is in RFC-stone. Can it be replaced with something a little less time-sensitive?

Consider changing the "must not" on the second line of page 9 to "MUST NOT" (or not).

Magnus Westerlund No Objection