From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 10 07:36:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtNtw-0007h3-Ir; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:35:28 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtNtv-0007gl-9C for ops-area@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:35:27 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtNtt-0007cD-QM for ops-area@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:35:27 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBACZNnE026595 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:35:24 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:35:23 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: reminder about BOFs in Prague Thread-Index: AcccV6ii14zulLX7R3CFlQvi3jCmlA== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: ops-area@ietf.org Subject: [OPS-AREA] reminder about BOFs in Prague X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org David, I suggest that we send to the OPS area lists a reminder about the BOFs we plan for Prague =20 'This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague IETF a number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting slots with the intention to bring to attention new ideas in the operations and management area and discuss which of those are worth becoming subject for future standardization, research or prototyping work. Although there are still three months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too early to send proposals, both in order to help planning the sessions, as well as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding preliminary discussions. Any of the lists in the area would do, but ops-area@ietf.org would prpbably be the best.=20 David and Dan' Dan _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 10 09:40:48 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtPqJ-0003Gb-Ay; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:39:51 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtPqI-0003GT-Oa for ops-area@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:39:50 -0500 Received: from nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GtPqH-0001YI-Dd for ops-area@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:39:50 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBAEdhXj030769 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:39:44 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] reminder about BOFs in Prague Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 16:39:43 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] reminder about BOFs in Prague Thread-Index: AcccV6ii14zulLX7R3CFlQvi3jCmlAAEQsAw From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Cc: ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org ooops ... my reminder to David about a reminder went out to the list, so ... take it as a reminder :-) Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)=20 > Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 2:35 PM > To: david.kessens@nokia.com > Cc: ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-AREA] reminder about BOFs in Prague >=20 >=20 > David, >=20 > I suggest that we send to the OPS area lists a reminder about=20 > the BOFs we plan for Prague > =20 > 'This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague=20 > IETF a number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting=20 > slots with the intention to bring to attention new ideas in=20 > the operations and management area and discuss which of those=20 > are worth becoming subject for future standardization,=20 > research or prototyping work. Although there are still three=20 > months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too early to=20 > send proposals, both in order to help planning the sessions,=20 > as well as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding=20 > preliminary discussions. Any of the lists in the area would=20 > do, but ops-area@ietf.org would prpbably be the best.=20 >=20 > David and Dan' >=20 > Dan >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area >=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Mon Dec 18 14:31:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwOCm-00057U-0j; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:20 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwOCj-00054X-Hm; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:17 -0500 Received: from nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwOCh-0001Sr-2S; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:17 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBIJVBEC009649; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:14 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:31:11 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: reminder about OPS Area BOFs in Prague Thread-Index: AcccV6ii14zulLX7R3CFlQvi3jCmlA== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , , "MIB Doctors" , , "DNS Directorate" X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, IESG Subject: [OPS-AREA] reminder about OPS Area BOFs in Prague X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org David, =20 This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague IETF a number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting slots with the intention to bring to attention new ideas in the operations and management area and discuss which of those are worth becoming subject for future standardization, research or prototyping work. Although there are still three months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too early to send proposals, both in order to help planning the sessions, as well as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding preliminary discussions. Any of the lists in the area would do, but ops-area@ietf.org would probably be the best.=20 David and Dan _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 19 02:54:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwZnY-0005dc-21; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:54:04 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwZnV-0005cJ-NM; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:54:01 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwZnO-0006jc-Gr; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:54:01 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBJ7rq0W032607; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:53:53 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Received: from 300815erh2.post.avaya.com ([198.152.6.49]) by IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:32:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.103]) by 300815erh2.post.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBIJWa1g000326 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:32:36 -0500 Received: from co300216-co-ierwest.avaya.com (h198-152-13-104.avaya.com [198.152.13.104]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBIJRLYO001667 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:32:30 -0500 Received: from lists.ietf.org (HELO megatron.ietf.org) ([156.154.16.145]) by co300216-co-ierwest.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Dec 2006 14:31:38 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwOCk-00055A-Iu; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:18 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwOCj-00054X-Hm; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:17 -0500 Received: from nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwOCh-0001Sr-2S; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:17 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by nj300815-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBIJVBEC009649; Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:31:14 -0500 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:53:50 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: OPS Area BOFs in Prague Thread-Index: AcccV6ii14zulLX7R3CFlQvi3jCmlA== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , , "MIB Doctors" , , "DNS Directorate" X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, IESG Subject: [OPS-AREA] OPS Area BOFs in Prague X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org =20 This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague IETF a number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting slots with the intention to bring to attention new ideas in the operations and management area and discuss which of those are worth becoming subject for future standardization, research or prototyping work. Although there are still three months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too early to send proposals, both in order to help planning the sessions, as well as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding preliminary discussions. Any of the lists in the area would do, but ops-area@ietf.org would probably be the best.=20 David and Dan _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 19 06:29:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwd9P-0007eN-3X; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:28:51 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwd9N-0007d5-Dk; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:28:49 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwd9J-0006vt-2k; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:28:49 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBJBSdBP008813; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:28:40 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:28:38 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon Thread-Index: AccjSf+7X4yibn/yR1KjzILygAVQmgAFqotw From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: , , "MIB Doctors" X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: IETF Chair [mailto:chair@ietf.org]=20 Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:39 AM To: IETF Announcement list Subject: Preliminary BOF proposals due soon=20 As for the previous IETF, we're asking for preliminary BOF proposals to be sent to the appropriate Area Director a little earlier, by January 15. Even sooner would be better! Full list of dates:=20 http://www.ietf.org/meetings/68-cutoff_dates.html BOF wiki: http://www1.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki Hints: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-successful-bof Brian Carpenter _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 19 18:48:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwohB-0005cr-7L; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:48:29 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwoh9-0005cm-E7 for ops-area@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:48:27 -0500 Received: from alnrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.225.92]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwoh7-0006d6-0a for ops-area@ietf.org; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:48:27 -0500 Received: from harrington73653 (135-152.186-72.tampabay.res.rr.com[72.186.152.135]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc12) with SMTP id <20061219234824b1200bt297e>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:48:24 +0000 From: "David Harrington" To: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:45:20 -0500 Message-ID: <191c01c723c7$bece3e80$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcccV6ii14zulLX7R3CFlQvi3jCmlAHZmmUAAAJRvmA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list. I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion. These may be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs. 1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the OpSec WG, to have **operators** document how they actually manage networks today, and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to accomplish such management. For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is documented anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are documented elsewhere. I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented, which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches documented in the IETF. 2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it would be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think might exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist. In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF should simply move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management protocols. If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise equipment vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols. How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs, or let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate management solutions? 3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider manageability requirements, not a required section in all documents). There was a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from operators and standards writers, and would probably be a good choice for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached. Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:54 AM > To: ops-area@ietf.org; ops-nm@ietf.org; MIB Doctors; > aaa-doctors@ietf.org; DNS Directorate > Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; IESG > Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague > > > This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague IETF a > number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting slots with the > intention to bring to attention new ideas in the operations and > management area and discuss which of those are worth becoming subject > for future standardization, research or prototyping work. > Although there > are still three months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too early > to send proposals, both in order to help planning the > sessions, as well > as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding preliminary > discussions. Any of the lists in the area would do, but > ops-area@ietf.org would probably be the best. > > David and Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > MIB-DOCTORS mailing list > MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Tue Dec 19 19:54:07 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwphq-0003xE-Kv; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:53:14 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwnoZ-0001uZ-HR; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:52:03 -0500 Received: from alnrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.225.93]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GwnoY-0004q5-7a; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:52:03 -0500 Received: from harrington73653 (135-152.186-72.tampabay.res.rr.com?[72.186.152.135]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc13) with SMTP id <20061219225200b1300q8t3qe>; Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:52:01 +0000 From: "David B Harrington" To: "'Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)'" , , , "'MIB Doctors'" , , "'DNS Directorate'" Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:48:54 -0500 Message-ID: <191a01c723bf$dd9b80f0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcccV6ii14zulLX7R3CFlQvi3jCmlAHZmmUA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:53:13 -0500 Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, 'IESG' Subject: [OPS-AREA] RE: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list. I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion. These may be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs. 1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the OpSec WG, to have **operators** document how they actually manage networks today, and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to accomplish such management. For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is documented anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are documented elsewhere. I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented, which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches documented in the IETF. 2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it would be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think might exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist. In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF should simply move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management protocols. If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise equipment vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols. How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs, or let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate management solutions? 3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider manageability requirements, not a required section in all documents). There was a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from operators and standards writers, and would probably be a good choice for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached. Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2. dbh > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:54 AM > To: ops-area@ietf.org; ops-nm@ietf.org; MIB Doctors; > aaa-doctors@ietf.org; DNS Directorate > Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; IESG > Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague > > > This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague IETF a > number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting slots with the > intention to bring to attention new ideas in the operations and > management area and discuss which of those are worth becoming subject > for future standardization, research or prototyping work. > Although there > are still three months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too early > to send proposals, both in order to help planning the > sessions, as well > as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding preliminary > discussions. Any of the lists in the area would do, but > ops-area@ietf.org would probably be the best. > > David and Dan > > > _______________________________________________ > MIB-DOCTORS mailing list > MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 20 03:20:28 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwwfp-0003yo-T8; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:19:37 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwwfp-0003wf-0M for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:19:37 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gwwfn-000515-Ia for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:19:36 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBK8JXnq029614 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 03:19:34 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] FW: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:19:31 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] FW: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague Thread-Index: AcccV6ii14zulLX7R3CFlQvi3jCmlAHZmmUAAAJRvmAAEcPDsA== From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "David Harrington" , X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 Cc: X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org David, I believe that you may want to create separate threads for each of the issues, so that we do not mix them. It's not that they are not inter-related, but we probably want to hold separate BOFs, which actionable outcome.=20 #1 and #3 seem on the line of what BOFs are. I do not know how you want to organize the discussion around #2, maybe a OPS Area meeting section 'OPS Area - where to'? Anyway, all need more work for a proper scope definition and first of all input from the community.=20 Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Harrington [mailto:ietfdbh@comcast.net]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 1:45 AM > To: ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list. >=20 > I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion.=20 > These may be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs. >=20 > 1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the=20 > OpSec WG, to have **operators** document how they actually=20 > manage networks today, and to document what features they=20 > utilize in equipment today to accomplish such management.=20 >=20 > For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea=20 > open-office meetings that there are three major approaches to=20 > managing service provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I=20 > don't think this is documented anyplace in IETF documents. I=20 > don't know if these approaches are documented elsewhere.=20 >=20 > I don't know what they are, since my background is not=20 > SP-oriented, which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move=20 > toward a more SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get=20 > these approaches documented in the IETF. >=20 > 2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and=20 > it would be good to not waste resources trying to solve=20 > problems we think might exist, when we could be working on=20 > the problems we know exist. >=20 > In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors=20 > participated. It might be time to have a discussion of=20 > whether the IETF should simply move to be more SP-centric,=20 > especially the IETF management protocols. > If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is=20 > important for them to contribute to IETF protocol designs,=20 > then enterprise equipment vendors (and their customers) may=20 > need to move toward an SP-centric approach to utilize=20 > emerging/future IETF protocols.=20 >=20 > How do we want to focus our Operations and Management=20 > resources? Is the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating=20 > and managing the Internet? Should we adopt the management=20 > standards from other SDOs, or let the other IETF areas design=20 > their own focus-appropriate management solutions? >=20 > 3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work=20 > being done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to=20 > consider manageability requirements, not a required section=20 > in all documents). > There was a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS=20 > Area open meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving=20 > consensus from operators and standards writers, and would=20 > probably be a good choice for an EDU tutorial once consensus=20 > is reached. >=20 > Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2. >=20 > dbh=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 2:54 AM > > To: ops-area@ietf.org; ops-nm@ietf.org; MIB Doctors;=20 > > aaa-doctors@ietf.org; DNS Directorate > > Cc: nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; IESG > > Subject: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague > >=20 > > =20 > > This is a reminder that we intent to schedule for the Prague IETF a=20 > > number of BOFs or mini-BOFs in the OPS area meeting slots with the=20 > > intention to bring to attention new ideas in the operations and=20 > > management area and discuss which of those are worth becoming > subject > > for future standardization, research or prototyping work.=20 > > Although there > > are still three months to go until the Prague IETF it is not too > early > > to send proposals, both in order to help planning the sessions, as=20 > > well as in order to better prepare the sessions by holding=20 > preliminary=20 > > discussions. Any of the lists in the area would do, but=20 > > ops-area@ietf.org would probably be the best. > >=20 > > David and Dan > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > MIB-DOCTORS mailing list > > MIB-DOCTORS@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mib-doctors > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area >=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 20 14:13:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx6sN-0004Qp-B0; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:13:15 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx6sE-0003ov-Kn for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:13:06 -0500 Received: from omr3.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.53]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx6pb-00053v-76 for ops-area@ietf.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:10:25 -0500 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (ns-omr3.mgt.netsolmail.com [10.49.6.66]) by omr3.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id kBKJAIWN004641 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:10:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 13830 invoked by uid 78); 20 Dec 2006 19:10:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andy@andybierman.com@75.83.56.110) by ns-omr3.lb.hosting.dc2.netsol.com with SMTP; 20 Dec 2006 19:10:18 -0000 Message-ID: <45898A91.70305@andybierman.com> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:10:09 -0800 From: Andy Bierman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David B Harrington References: <191a01c723bf$dd9b80f0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <191a01c723bf$dd9b80f0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b280b4db656c3ca28dd62e5e0b03daa8 Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org, aaa-doctors@ietf.org, 'MIB Doctors' , 'DNS Directorate' , 'IESG' , nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, ops-area@ietf.org Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org David B Harrington wrote: > Hi, > > Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list. > > I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion. These may > be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs. > > 1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the OpSec WG, to > have **operators** document how they actually manage networks today, > and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to > accomplish such management. I think such a documentation project could be a lot of work. If there were enough participation, it would be very useful. > > For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office > meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service > provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is documented > anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are > documented elsewhere. > > I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented, > which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more > SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches > documented in the IETF. > > 2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it would > be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think might > exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist. > > In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It > might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF should simply > move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management protocols. > If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for > them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise equipment > vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric > approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols. > > How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is > the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the > Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs, or > let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate management > solutions? IMO this tends to work itself out in the end. The people involved in a WG will influence its outcome, and the people not involved in a WG will not influence its outcome. Labels like Enterprise and SP are not that helpful here. Some companies have both kinds of products. > > 3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being > done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider > manageability requirements, not a required section in all documents). > There was a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open > meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from > operators and standards writers, and would probably be a good choice > for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached. > > Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2. > More documentation work. It would be useful to both RFC readers and writers, so I couldn't argue against it. I want every WG that creates a protocol to think about how operators and developers are going to securely and efficiently manage the protocol, including configuration. It should not be left as a proprietary component forever. IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol should meet strict manageability requirements, which would obviously need to be documented in an RFC. > dbh Andy _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Wed Dec 20 14:23:45 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx72R-0002Of-4b; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:39 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx72Q-0002OD-EK; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:38 -0500 Received: from smtpproxy2.mitre.org ([192.80.55.71] helo=smtp-mclean.mitre.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gx72L-0000oI-UD; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:38 -0500 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id kBKJNVhs013628; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:31 -0500 Received: from smtp-mclean.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D4E1BD82; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG (imcfe1.mitre.org [129.83.29.3]) by smtp-mclean.mitre.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBKJNUkR013610; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:31 -0500 Received: from IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.20.164]) by IMCFE1.MITRE.ORG with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:30 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:23:26 -0500 Message-ID: <4915F014FDD99049A9C3A8C1B832004F017732AB@IMCSRV2.MITRE.ORG> In-Reply-To: <45898A91.70305@andybierman.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague Thread-Index: Acckav4kHdal9oCGSUqvFbDMNASGOAAALfew From: "Natale, Bob" To: , , , "IESG" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2006 19:23:30.0673 (UTC) FILETIME=[55225610:01C7246C] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5ebbf074524e58e662bc8209a6235027 Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org, MIB Doctors , DNS Directorate X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I strongly agree with Andy's position (from below): "IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol should meet strict manageability requirements, which would obviously need to be documented in an RFC." Cheers, BobN -----Original Message----- From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:10 PM To: David B Harrington Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org; aaa-doctors@ietf.org; 'MIB Doctors'; 'DNS Directorate'; 'IESG'; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; ops-area@ietf.org Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague David B Harrington wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list. >=20 > I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion. These may > be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs. >=20 > 1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the OpSec WG, to > have **operators** document how they actually manage networks today, > and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to > accomplish such management.=20 I think such a documentation project could be a lot of work. If there were enough participation, it would be very useful. >=20 > For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office > meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service > provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is documented > anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are > documented elsewhere.=20 >=20 > I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented, > which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more > SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches > documented in the IETF. >=20 > 2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it would > be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think might > exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist. >=20 > In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It > might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF should simply > move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management protocols. > If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for > them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise equipment > vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric > approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols.=20 >=20 > How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is > the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the > Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs, or > let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate management > solutions? IMO this tends to work itself out in the end. The people involved in a WG will influence its outcome, and the people not involved in a WG will not influence its outcome. Labels like Enterprise and SP are not that helpful here. Some companies have both kinds of products. >=20 > 3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being > done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider > manageability requirements, not a required section in all documents). > There was a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open > meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from > operators and standards writers, and would probably be a good choice > for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached. >=20 > Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2. >=20 More documentation work. It would be useful to both RFC readers and writers, so I couldn't argue against it. I want every WG that creates a protocol to think about how operators and developers are going to securely and efficiently manage the protocol, including configuration. It should not be left as a proprietary component forever. IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol should meet strict manageability requirements, which would obviously need to be documented in an RFC. > dbh=20 Andy _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 21 07:03:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxMdP-0007Z2-32; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:02:51 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxMdM-0007WT-RA; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:02:48 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxMdK-0001ly-Hs; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:02:48 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBLC2dwZ025059; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:02:40 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [OPS-NM] RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:02:38 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [OPS-NM] RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague Thread-Index: Acckav4kHdal9oCGSUqvFbDMNASGOAAALfewACLaaKA= From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: "Natale, Bob" , , , , "IESG" X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d16ce744298aacf98517bc7c108bd198 Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org, MIB Doctors , DNS Directorate X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org I am not in the position to disagree :-) We need however to start from something. This 'something' is in my opinion a document to guide IETF authors in writing manageability and operational requirements in their protocol documents. Today in the absence of such a reference I encounter huge problems in my role of Area Director when I come and say 'we cannot approve this new protocol because it says nothing about how it will be managed or what impact it will have in the operation of the network'. The typical answers are 'who says it needs to say something about management and operations?' or 'what is the reference for what we need to include about manageability and operations'?=20 Dan =20 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Natale, Bob [mailto:RNATALE@mitre.org]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:23 PM > To: ops-nm@ietf.org; ops-area@ietf.org; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; IESG > Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; MIB Doctors; DNS Directorate > Subject: [OPS-NM] RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area=20 > BOFs in Prague >=20 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I strongly agree with Andy's position (from below): >=20 > "IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol should meet=20 > strict manageability requirements, which would obviously need=20 > to be documented in an RFC." >=20 > Cheers, > BobN >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:10 PM > To: David B Harrington > Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org; aaa-doctors@ietf.org; 'MIB Doctors';=20 > 'DNS Directorate'; 'IESG'; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; ops-area@ietf.org > Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague >=20 > David B Harrington wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list. > >=20 > > I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion.=20 > These may=20 > > be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs. > >=20 > > 1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the=20 > OpSec WG, to=20 > > have **operators** document how they actually manage=20 > networks today,=20 > > and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to=20 > > accomplish such management. >=20 >=20 > I think such a documentation project could be a lot of work. > If there were enough participation, it would be very useful. >=20 >=20 > >=20 > > For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office=20 > > meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service=20 > > provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is > documented > > anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are=20 > > documented elsewhere. > >=20 > > I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented,=20 > > which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more=20 > > SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches=20 > > documented in the IETF. > >=20 > > 2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it > would > > be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think > might > > exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist. > >=20 > > In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It=20 > > might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF=20 > should simply=20 > > move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management=20 > protocols. > > If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for=20 > > them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise > equipment > > vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric=20 > > approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols. > >=20 > > How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is=20 > > the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the=20 > > Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs, > or > > let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate > management > > solutions? >=20 >=20 > IMO this tends to work itself out in the end. > The people involved in a WG will influence its outcome, and=20 > the people not involved in a WG will not influence its outcome. >=20 > Labels like Enterprise and SP are not that helpful here. > Some companies have both kinds of products. >=20 >=20 > >=20 > > 3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being=20 > > done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider=20 > > manageability requirements, not a required section in all=20 > documents). > > There was a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open=20 > > meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from=20 > > operators and standards writers, and would probably be a=20 > good choice=20 > > for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached. > >=20 > > Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2. > >=20 >=20 > More documentation work. It would be useful to both RFC=20 > readers and writers, so I couldn't argue against it. I want=20 > every WG that creates a protocol to think about how operators=20 > and developers are going to securely and efficiently manage=20 > the protocol, including configuration. It should not be left=20 > as a proprietary component forever. IMO, to advance to Draft=20 > Standard, a protocol should meet strict manageability=20 > requirements, which would obviously need to be documented in an RFC. >=20 >=20 > > dbh >=20 > Andy >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-AREA mailing list > OPS-AREA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPS-NM mailing list > OPS-NM@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm >=20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 21 10:46:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxQ7P-0004TM-LA; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:03 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxNyc-0002G2-4x; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:28:50 -0500 Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxNyZ-0007HB-DU; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:28:50 -0500 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBLDSkk7171472; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:28:46 GMT Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.229]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/NCO v8.1.1) with ESMTP id kBLDSkPe3141884; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:28:46 +0100 Received: from d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id kBLDSjHe000499; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:28:46 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av04.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kBLDSiCA000469; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:28:45 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.4.210.199]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA116486; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:28:43 +0100 Message-ID: <458A8C0C.3020805@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:28:44 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" Subject: Re: [OPS-NM] RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 43317e64100dd4d87214c51822b582d1 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:03 -0500 Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org, aaa-doctors@ietf.org, MIB Doctors , DNS Directorate , IESG , nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org I think Dan has it right, as far as a practical first step is concerned. It's far from clear that we have IETF consensus for anything stronger than guidance, but guidance is certainly needed. Brian Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > I am not in the position to disagree :-) > > We need however to start from something. This 'something' is in my > opinion a document to guide IETF authors in writing manageability and > operational requirements in their protocol documents. Today in the > absence of such a reference I encounter huge problems in my role of Area > Director when I come and say 'we cannot approve this new protocol > because it says nothing about how it will be managed or what impact it > will have in the operation of the network'. The typical answers are 'who > says it needs to say something about management and operations?' or > 'what is the reference for what we need to include about manageability > and operations'? > > Dan > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Natale, Bob [mailto:RNATALE@mitre.org] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:23 PM >>To: ops-nm@ietf.org; ops-area@ietf.org; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; IESG >>Cc: aaa-doctors@ietf.org; MIB Doctors; DNS Directorate >>Subject: [OPS-NM] RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area >>BOFs in Prague >> >> >>Hi, >> >>I strongly agree with Andy's position (from below): >> >>"IMO, to advance to Draft Standard, a protocol should meet >>strict manageability requirements, which would obviously need >>to be documented in an RFC." >> >>Cheers, >>BobN >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:10 PM >>To: David B Harrington >>Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org; aaa-doctors@ietf.org; 'MIB Doctors'; >>'DNS Directorate'; 'IESG'; nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; ops-area@ietf.org >>Subject: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague >> >>David B Harrington wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Please respond only to the OPS-area mailing list. >>> >>>I would like to raise three potential areas of discussion. >> >>These may >> >>>be suitable for BOFs or mini-BOFs. >>> >>>1) An OpsNM BOF, designed to lead to a WG similar to the >> >>OpSec WG, to >> >>>have **operators** document how they actually manage >> >>networks today, >> >>>and to document what features they utilize in equipment today to >>>accomplish such management. >> >> >>I think such a documentation project could be a lot of work. >>If there were enough participation, it would be very useful. >> >> >> >>>For example, DavidK mentioned during the last OPSarea open-office >>>meetings that there are three major approaches to managing service >>>provider networks (Motorola, ??, ??). I don't think this is >> >>documented >> >>>anyplace in IETF documents. I don't know if these approaches are >>>documented elsewhere. >>> >>>I don't know what they are, since my background is not SP-oriented, >>>which is true of many IETF NM people. As we move toward a more >>>SP-centric Internet, it would be helpful to get these approaches >>>documented in the IETF. >>> >>>2) The IETF has limited resources to accomplish its work, and it >> >>would >> >>>be good to not waste resources trying to solve problems we think >> >>might >> >>>exist, when we could be working on the problems we know exist. >>> >>>In the OpSec WG, few enterprise equipment vendors participated. It >>>might be time to have a discussion of whether the IETF >> >>should simply >> >>>move to be more SP-centric, especially the IETF management >> >>protocols. >> >>>If enterprise equipment vendors do not believe it is important for >>>them to contribute to IETF protocol designs, then enterprise >> >>equipment >> >>>vendors (and their customers) may need to move toward an SP-centric >>>approach to utilize emerging/future IETF protocols. >>> >>>How do we want to focus our Operations and Management resources? Is >>>the IETF OPS area still relevant for operating and managing the >>>Internet? Should we adopt the management standards from other SDOs, >> >>or >> >>>let the other IETF areas design their own focus-appropriate >> >>management >> >>>solutions? >> >> >>IMO this tends to work itself out in the end. >>The people involved in a WG will influence its outcome, and >>the people not involved in a WG will not influence its outcome. >> >>Labels like Enterprise and SP are not that helpful here. >>Some companies have both kinds of products. >> >> >> >>>3) A manageability considerations BOF. There is already work being >>>done on manageability considerations guidelines (how to consider >>>manageability requirements, not a required section in all >> >>documents). >> >>>There was a lot of discussion about this in the last OPS Area open >>>meeting as well. This would benefit from achieving consensus from >>>operators and standards writers, and would probably be a >> >>good choice >> >>>for an EDU tutorial once consensus is reached. >>> >>>Obviously, this would benefit from the discussions of #1 and #2. >>> >> >>More documentation work. It would be useful to both RFC >>readers and writers, so I couldn't argue against it. I want >>every WG that creates a protocol to think about how operators >>and developers are going to securely and efficiently manage >>the protocol, including configuration. It should not be left >>as a proprietary component forever. IMO, to advance to Draft >>Standard, a protocol should meet strict manageability >>requirements, which would obviously need to be documented in an RFC. >> >> >> >>>dbh >> >>Andy >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OPS-AREA mailing list >>OPS-AREA@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area >> >>_______________________________________________ >>OPS-NM mailing list >>OPS-NM@ietf.org >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-nm >> > > > _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Thu Dec 21 11:01:31 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxQME-0002fF-KV; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:01:22 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxQMD-0002er-Ux for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:01:21 -0500 Received: from omr8.networksolutionsemail.com ([205.178.146.58]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GxQMB-0004CK-VU for ops-area@ietf.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:01:21 -0500 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (ns-omr8.mgt.netsol.com [10.49.6.71]) by omr8.networksolutionsemail.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id kBLG1Hpc012860 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:01:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 2994 invoked by uid 78); 21 Dec 2006 16:01:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (andy@andybierman.com@75.83.56.110) by ns-omr8.lb.hosting.dc2.netsol.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 2006 16:01:16 -0000 Message-ID: <458AB03E.9010907@andybierman.com> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:03:10 -0800 From: Andy Bierman User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: [OPS-NM] RE: [OPS-AREA] Re: [MIB-DOCTORS] OPS Area BOFs in Prague References: <458A8C0C.3020805@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <458A8C0C.3020805@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: ops-nm@ietf.org, aaa-doctors@ietf.org, MIB Doctors , DNS Directorate , IESG , nmrg@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de, ops-area@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I think Dan has it right, as far as a practical first step is concerned. > It's far from clear that we have IETF consensus for anything stronger > than guidance, but guidance is certainly needed. > Agreed -- it is just my opinion that Draft Standard should actually stand for something objectively useful. But that is a different thread which has certainly been discussed at length already. > Brian Andy _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 24 06:26:35 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GyRTv-0001Ep-7B; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:25:31 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GyRTt-0001Eh-Cj; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:25:29 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GyRTs-0006qM-4B; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:25:29 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBOBPOjU017853; Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:25:25 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:25:23 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RFC 4639 on Cable Device Management Information Base forData-Over-Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems Thread-Index: AccmJk1gOPU6scodQHGswVMkg/U1QABJ7a1Q From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: ops-area@ietf.org Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: RFC 4639 on Cable Device Management Information Base forData-Over-Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Congratulations to the editors, chairs and the whole IPCDN Working Group for the publication of this RFC.=20 Dan =20 -----Original Message----- From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org]=20 Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:56 PM To: ietf-announce@ietf.org; rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org Cc: ipcdn@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: RFC 4639 on Cable Device Management Information Base forData-Over-Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS)Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. =20 RFC 4639 Title: Cable Device Management Information Base=20 for Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specification=20 (DOCSIS) Compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem=20 Termination Systems=20 Author: R. Woundy, K. Marez =20 _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From ops-area-bounces@ietf.org Sun Dec 31 04:29:40 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0wzb-0004p6-9j; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:28:35 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0wzZ-0004p1-V0 for ops-area@ietf.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:28:33 -0500 Received: from co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com ([198.152.13.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H0wzY-0006wi-Ku for ops-area@ietf.org; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:28:33 -0500 Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by co300216-ier2.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.8/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id kBV9SOSd023574 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:28:25 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 11:28:23 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Last Call: draft-bonica-internet-icmp (Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages) to Proposed Standard Thread-Index: AccraTmvErQydR8QShOBGNd2bcureQBVLOaQ From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" To: X-Scanner: InterScan AntiVirus for Sendmail X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 5a9a1bd6c2d06a21d748b7d0070ddcb8 Cc: rbonica@juniper.net Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: [Int-area] Last Call: draft-bonica-internet-icmp (Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: ops-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: OPS Area e-mail list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org =20 I believe that this may be of interest in the OPS area as well.=20 Dan =20 -----Original Message----- From: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net]=20 Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:46 PM To: Internet Area; mpls@lists.ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: [Int-area] Last Call: draft-bonica-internet-icmp (Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages) to Proposed Standard Folks, Apologies for the massive cross posting. The following message was posted on IETF-announce a few days ago. The posting AD asked me to repeat the message on these lists for those who don't subscribe to IETF-announce. Ron =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages ' as a Proposed Standard 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 at ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-01-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bonica-internet-icmp-14.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=3Dview_id&dTag= =3D 13675&rfc_flag=3D0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area