Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management(Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of NewProtocols and Protocol Extensions) to BCP

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>]

To put it differently, the OPS area has as much right to propose their 
requirements as any other area (Transport Congestion, Security, ...) 
has.  And generally, the community has listened to such requests and 
gone along with them.

Yes, we have produced a bit of a problem that our initial standards now 
have a quality bar comparable with completed work.  But we shouldn't 
suddenly pick on OPS for that.  If we are going to address that problem, 
it ought to be in a coherent fashion that discusses how we deal with all 
the legitimate requirements, including the fact that stuff has to be 
operable.

This does not mean we have to simply accept what they (OSP) say.  But it 
does mean we should give it a fair review, looking at the details, 
rather than objecting on principle.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern


Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "Eric" == Eric Rosen <erosen at cisco.com> writes:
>
>     Eric> I don't see that OPSAWG has any business imposing
>     Eric> requirements on work done by other WGs in other Areas.
>
> Obviously I agree with this statement.  However I do believe that the
> ops area can propose and build consensus on requirements that we all
> agree to follow.  I think this document may be a starting point in
> such a discussion.  I think Eric and I probably both agree it should
> not be the final word.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf