draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-03.txt   draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-04.txt 
Network Working Group D. Harrington Network Working Group D. Harrington
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies USA Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies USA
Intended status: Best Current February 25, 2008 Intended status: BCP July 14, 2008
Practice Expires: January 15, 2009
Expires: August 28, 2008
Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols
draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-03 draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-04
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 15, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract Abstract
New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due
consideration of functionality needed to operate and manage the consideration of functionality needed to operate and manage the
protocol. Retrofitting operations and management is sub-optimal. protocol. Retrofitting operations and management is sub-optimal.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors and The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors and
reviewers of documents defining new protocols or protocol extensions, reviewers of documents defining new protocols or protocol extensions,
covering aspects of operations and management that should be covering aspects of operations and management that should be
considered. considered.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Design for Operations and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Design for Operations and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. IETF Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. IETF Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Operations Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Operations Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional 3.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.2. Fault Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.3.2. Fault Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.3. Fault Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3.3. Fault Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3.4. Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3.4. Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.4.2. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4.2. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.5. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.5. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.6. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.6. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.7. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.7. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5. Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.1. Recommended Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.1. Recommended Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Null Manageability Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . 21 5.2. Null Manageability Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . 23
5.3. Placement of Operations and Manageability 5.3. Placement of Operations and Manageability
Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix A. Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.1. General Document Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 A.1. General Document Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.2. Operations and Management Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.2. Operations and Management Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix C. DISCUSSES that have yet to be discussed . . . . . . . 28
Appendix D. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Often when new protocols or protocol extensions are developed, not Often when new protocols or protocol extensions are developed, not
enough consideration is given to how the protocol will be deployed, enough consideration is given to how the protocol will be deployed,
operated and managed. Retrofitting operations and management operated and managed. Retrofitting operations and management
mechanisms is often hard and architecturally unpleasant, and certain mechanisms is often hard and architecturally unpleasant, and certain
protocol design choices may make deployment, operations, and protocol design choices may make deployment, operations, and
management particularly hard. Since the ease of operations and management particularly hard. Since the ease of operations and
management may impact the success of IETF protocols, this document management may impact the success of IETF protocols, this document
provides guidelines to help protocol designers and working groups provides guidelines to help protocol designers and working groups
consider the operations and management functionality needed by their consider the operations and management functionality needed by their
new IETF protocol or protocol extension at an earlier phase. new IETF protocol or protocol extension at an earlier phase.
This document suggests protocol designers consider operations and This document suggests protocol designers to consider operations and
management needs and then recommend appropriate standard management management needs and then recommend appropriate standard management
protocols and data models to address the relevant operations and protocols and data models to address the relevant operations and
management needs. This is similar to a WG considering which security management needs. This is similar to a WG considering which security
threats are relevant to their protocol, and then recommending threats are relevant to their protocol, and then recommending
appropriate standard security protocols to mitigate the relevant appropriate standard security protocols to mitigate the relevant
threats. threats.
This document discusses the importance of considering operations and This document discusses the importance of considering operations and
management. Section 3 discusses operational functionality to management. Section 1 introduces the subject and section 2 describes
consider. Section 4 discusses management functionality to consider. the IETF Management Framework. Section 3 discusses operational
functionality to consider. Section 4 discusses management
functionality to consider.
This document sets forth a list of subjective guidelines and a list This document sets forth a list of subjective guidelines and a list
of objective criteria by which a protocol designer can evaluate of objective criteria by which a protocol designer can evaluate
whether the protocol that he/she has developed addresses common whether the protocol that he/she has developed addresses common
operations and management needs. Operations and management is highly operations and management needs. Operations and management is highly
dependent on the environment in which it is used, so most guidelines dependent on the environment in which it is used, so most guidelines
are subjective rather than objective. are subjective rather than objective.
We provide some objective criteria to promote interoperability We provide some objective criteria to promote interoperability
through the use of standard management interfaces, such as "did you through the use of standard management interfaces, such as "did you
design counters in a MIB module for monitoring packets in/out of an design counters in a MIB module for monitoring packets in/out of an
interface?" [RFC2863], "did you write an XML-based data model for interface?" [RFC2863], "did you write an XML-based data model for
configuring your protocol with Netconf?" [RFC4741], and "did you configuring your protocol with Netconf?" [RFC4741], and "did you
standardize syslog message content and structured data elements for standardize syslog message content and structured data elements for
reporting events that might occur when operating your protocol?" reporting events that might occur when operating your protocol?"
[I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] and "did you consider appropriate
notifications in case of failure situations??
This document only provides guidelines; it does not specify how the This document only provides guidelines; it does not specify how the
guidelines provided should be used within the IETF. guidelines provided should be used within the IETF.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This document deliberately does not use the (capitalized) key words This document deliberately does not use the (capitalized) key words
described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 states the keywords must described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 states the keywords must
only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to
limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting
skipping to change at page 5, line 33 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
there is a need to support a human interface and a programmatic there is a need to support a human interface and a programmatic
interface. The IETF decided to standardize aspects of the de facto interface. The IETF decided to standardize aspects of the de facto
standard for system logging, especially security and the need for standard for system logging, especially security and the need for
better programmatic support. better programmatic support.
In 2006, the IETF discussed whether the Management Framework should In 2006, the IETF discussed whether the Management Framework should
be updated to accommodate multiple IETF standard SMI languages, and be updated to accommodate multiple IETF standard SMI languages, and
multiple IETF standard protocols for doing network management. multiple IETF standard protocols for doing network management.
This document provides some initial guidelines for considering This document provides some initial guidelines for considering
operations and management in this environment of multiple protocols operations and management in an IETF Management Framework that
and multiple data models, with an eye toward being flexible while consists of multiple protocols and multiple data models, with an eye
also striving for interoperability. toward being flexible while also striving for interoperability.
3. Operational Considerations 3. Operational Considerations
Designers of a new protocol should carefully consider the operational Designers of a new protocol should carefully consider the operational
aspects. A protocol that is defined very precisely in a well-written aspects. A protocol that is defined very precisely in a well-written
document does not guarantee that it is going to be deployable in the document does not guarantee that it is going to be deployable in the
real world. Operational aspects will have a serious impact on the real world. Operational aspects will have a serious impact on the
actual success of a protocol. Such aspects include bad interactions actual success of a protocol. Such aspects include bad interactions
with existing solutions, a difficult upgrade path, difficulty of with existing solutions, a difficult upgrade path, difficulty of
debugging problems, difficulty configuring from a central database, debugging problems, difficulty configuring from a central database,
skipping to change at page 6, line 13 skipping to change at page 6, line 16
existence of BGP path exploration/slow convergence. In real existence of BGP path exploration/slow convergence. In real
operations, people observed the loss of reach-ability due to false operations, people observed the loss of reach-ability due to false
flap damping that are caused by path exploration. As a result, most flap damping that are caused by path exploration. As a result, most
places turned flap damping off. RIPE even issued official places turned flap damping off. RIPE even issued official
recommendation for turning it off. recommendation for turning it off.
[DISCUSS: examples, list of current protocols characteristics and [DISCUSS: examples, list of current protocols characteristics and
their impact on the network. e.g., burst traffic impact on network their impact on the network. e.g., burst traffic impact on network
congestion.] congestion.]
IPFIX contains congestion awareness enhancements for controlling the
impact of the protocol on the network.
3.1. Operations Model 3.1. Operations Model
Protocol designers can analyze the operational environment and mode Protocol designers can analyze the operational environment and mode
of work in which the new protocol or extension will work. Such an of work in which the new protocol or extension will work. Such an
exercise needs not be reflected directly by text in their document, exercise needs not be reflected directly by text in their document,
but could help in visualizing the operational model related to the but could help in visualizing the operational model related to the
applicability of the protocol in the Internet environments where it applicability of the protocol in the Internet environments where it
will be deployed. The operational model should take into account will be deployed. The operational model should take into account
factors such as: factors such as:
o what type of management entities will be involved (agents, network o what type of management entities will be involved (agents, network
management systems)? management systems)?
o what is the possible architecture (client-server, manager-agent, o what is the possible architecture (client-server, manager-agent,
polling-driven or event-driven, autoconfiguration, two levels or polling-driven or event-driven, autoconfiguration, two levels or
hierarchical)? hierarchical)?
o what are the basic management operations - initial configuration, o what are the management operations - initial configuration,
dynamic configuration, alarms and exceptions reporting, logging, dynamic configuration, alarms and exceptions reporting, logging,
performance monitoring, performance reporting, debugging? performance monitoring, performance reporting, debugging?
o how are these operations performed - locally, remotely, atomic o how are these operations performed - locally, remotely, atomic
operation, scripts? operation, scripts? Are they performed immediately or time
scheduled or event triggered?
o what are the typical user interfaces - Command line (CLI) or o what are the typical user interfaces - Command line (CLI) or
graphical user interface (GUI)? graphical user interface (GUI)?
Protocol designers should consider how the new protocol will be Protocol designers should consider how the new protocol will be
managed in different deployment scales. It might be sensible to use managed in different deployment scales. It might be sensible to use
a local management interface to manage the new protocol on a single a local management interface to manage the new protocol on a single
device, but in a large network, remote management using a centralized device, but in a large network, remote management using a centralized
server and/or using distributed management functionality might make server and/or using distributed management functionality might make
more sense. Auto-configuration and default parameters might be more sense. Auto-configuration and default parameters might be
possible for some new protocols. possible for some new protocols.
There may be a need to support a human interface, e.g., for There may be a need to support a human interface, e.g., for
troubleshooting, and a programmatic interface, e.g., for automated troubleshooting, and a programmatic interface, e.g., for automated
monitoring and root cause analysis. It might be important that the monitoring and root cause analysis. It might be important that the
internal method routines used by the application programming internal method routines used by the application programming
interfaces and the human interfaces should be the same to ensure that interfaces and the human interfaces should be the same to ensure that
data exchanged between these two interfaces is always consistent. data exchanged between these two interfaces is always consistent.
[DISCUSS: would the example of inconsistency between MIB counters Mixing methods leads to inconsistency, so identifying consistent
that cannot be reset and CLI counters that can be rest be useful methods of retrieving information is relevant. [DISCUSS: would the
here? ] example of inconsistency between MIB counters that cannot be reset
and CLI counters that can be rest be useful here?]
Protocol designers should consider what management operations are Protocol designers should consider what management operations are
expected to be performed as a result of the deployment of the expected to be performed as a result of the deployment of the
protocol - such as whether write operations will be allowed on protocol - such as whether write operations will be allowed on
routers and on hosts, or if notifications for alarms or other events routers and on hosts, or if notifications for alarms or other events
will be expected. will be expected.
3.2. Installation and Initial Setup 3.2. Installation and Initial Setup
Protocol designers should consider default values that make protocol Protocol designers should consider default values that make sense
sense, to simplify configuration, including default modes and from the protocol objectives, so as to simplify configuration,
parameters. For example, it could be helpful or necessary to specify including default modes and parameters. For example, it could be
default values for modes, timers, default state of logical control helpful or necessary to specify default values for modes, timers,
variables, default transports, and so on. Even if default values are default state of logical control variables, default transports, and
used, it must be possible to retrieve all the actual values or at so on. Even if default values are used, it must be possible to
least an indication that known default values are being used. retrieve all the actual values or at least an indication that known
default values are being used.
Protocol designers should consider how to enable operators to Protocol designers should consider how to enable operators to
concentrate on the configuration of the network as a whole rather concentrate on the configuration of the network as a whole rather
than individual devices. than individual devices.
It is also desirable to discuss the background of chosen default It is desirable to discuss the background of chosen default values,
values, or perhaps why a range of values makes sense. In many cases, or perhaps why a range of values makes sense. In many cases, when
when technology changes, the values in an RFC might make less and technology changes, the values in an RFC might make less and less
less sense (for example due to increased speeds in the network). It sense. It is very useful to understand whether defaults are based on
is very useful to understand whether defaults are based on best best current practice and are expected to change as technologies
current practice and are expected to change as technologies advance advance or whether they have a more universal value that should not
or whether they have a more universal value and should not be changed be changed lightly. For example, the default interface speed might
lightly. be expected to change over time due to increased speeds in the
network, and cryptographical algorithms might be expected to change
over time as older algoithms are "broken".
it is extremely important to set a sensible default value for all it is extremely important to set a sensible default value for all
parameters parameters
the default value should stay on the conservative side rather than the default value should stay on the conservative side rather than
on the "optimizing performance" side. (example: the initial RTT on the "optimizing performance" side. (example: the initial RTT
and RTTvar values of a TCP connection) and RTTvar values of a TCP connection)
for those parameters that are speed-dependent, instead of using a for those parameters that are speed-dependent, instead of using a
constant, try to set the default value as a function of the link constant, try to set the default value as a function of the link
skipping to change at page 8, line 18 skipping to change at page 8, line 30
replacing another technology, the protocol designer should consider replacing another technology, the protocol designer should consider
how deployments should transition to the new protocol. This should how deployments should transition to the new protocol. This should
include co-existence with previously deployed protocols and/or include co-existence with previously deployed protocols and/or
previous versions of the same protocol, incompatibilities between previous versions of the same protocol, incompatibilities between
versions, translation between versions, and side effects that might versions, translation between versions, and side effects that might
occur. Are older protocols or versions disabled or do they co-exist occur. Are older protocols or versions disabled or do they co-exist
in the network with the new protocol? in the network with the new protocol?
Another point to consider is extensibility of the management approach Another point to consider is extensibility of the management approach
- How open to future protocol extensions are the management - How open to future protocol extensions are the management
techniques you are defining? techniques you are defining? [DISCUSS: this could use a good example
of when a protocol designer should consider future extensions to the
management. Are we talking about writing extensible data models? ]
3.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 3.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components
Protocol designers should consider the requirements that the new Protocol designers should consider the requirements that the new
protocol might put on other protocols and functional components, and protocol might put on other protocols and functional components, and
should also document the requirements from other protocols that have should also document the requirements from other protocols that have
been considered in designing the new protocol. been considered in designing the new protocol.
These considerations should generally remain illustrative to avoid These considerations should generally remain illustrative to avoid
creating restrictions or dependencies, or potentially impacting the creating restrictions or dependencies, or potentially impacting the
skipping to change at page 9, line 6 skipping to change at page 9, line 20
The introduction of a new protocol or extensions to an existing The introduction of a new protocol or extensions to an existing
protocol may have an impact on the operation of existing networks. protocol may have an impact on the operation of existing networks.
Protocol designers should outline such impacts (which may be Protocol designers should outline such impacts (which may be
positive) including scaling concerns and interactions with other positive) including scaling concerns and interactions with other
protocols. For example, a new protocol that doubles the number of protocols. For example, a new protocol that doubles the number of
active, reachable addresses in use within a network might need to be active, reachable addresses in use within a network might need to be
considered in the light of the impact on the scalability of the IGPs considered in the light of the impact on the scalability of the IGPs
operating within the network. operating within the network.
A protocol could send active monitoring packets on the wire. If we
don't pay attention, we might get very good accuracy, but at the cost
of using all the available bandwidth.
The protocol designer should consider the potential impact on the The protocol designer should consider the potential impact on the
behavior of other protocols in the network and on the traffic levels behavior of other protocols in the network and on the traffic levels
and traffic patterns that might change, including specific types of and traffic patterns that might change, including specific types of
traffic such as multicast. Also consider the need to install new traffic such as multicast. Also consider the need to install new
components that are added to the network as result of the changes in components that are added to the network as result of the changes in
the operational model, such as servers performing auto-configuration the operational model, such as servers performing auto-configuration
operations. operations.
The protocol designer should consider also the impact on The protocol designer should consider also the impact on
infrastructure applications like the DNS [RFC1034], registries, or infrastructure applications like the DNS [RFC1034], registries, or
skipping to change at page 10, line 9 skipping to change at page 10, line 25
It is important to minimize the impact caused by configuration It is important to minimize the impact caused by configuration
changes. Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be changes. Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be
possible to generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with possible to generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with
minimal state changes and effects on network and systems. minimal state changes and effects on network and systems.
3.6. Verifying Correct Operation 3.6. Verifying Correct Operation
The protocol designer should consider techniques for testing the The protocol designer should consider techniques for testing the
effect that the protocol has had on the network by sending data effect that the protocol has had on the network by sending data
through the network and observing its behavior. Protocol designers through the network and observing its behavior (aka active
should consider how the correct end-to-end operation of the new monitoring). Protocol designers should consider how the correct end-
protocol in the network can be tested, and how the correct data or to-end operation of the new protocol in the network can be tested
forwarding plane function of each network element can be verified to actively and passively, and how the correct data or forwarding plane
be working properly with the new protocol. function of each network element can be verified to be working
properly with the new protocol. Which metrics are of interest?
4. Management Considerations 4. Management Considerations
The considerations of manageability should start from describing the The considerations of manageability should start from describing the
operational model, which includes identifying the entities to be operational model, which includes identifying the entities to be
managed, how the respective protocol is supposed to be installed, managed, how the respective protocol is supposed to be installed,
configured and monitored, who are the managers and what type of configured and monitored, who are the managers and what type of
management interfaces and protocols they would use. management interfaces and protocols they would use.
Considerations for management should include a discussion of what Considerations for management should include a discussion of what
skipping to change at page 10, line 36 skipping to change at page 11, line 5
focuses on monitoring a protocol endpoint on a single device. A MIB focuses on monitoring a protocol endpoint on a single device. A MIB
module document typically only considers monitoring properties module document typically only considers monitoring properties
observable at one end, while the document does not really cover observable at one end, while the document does not really cover
managing the *protocol* (the coordination of multiple ends), and does managing the *protocol* (the coordination of multiple ends), and does
not even come near managing the *service* (which includes a lot of not even come near managing the *service* (which includes a lot of
stuff that is very far away from the box). This is exactly what stuff that is very far away from the box). This is exactly what
operators hate - you need to be able to manage both ends. As operators hate - you need to be able to manage both ends. As
[RFC3535] says, MIB modules can often be characterized as a list of [RFC3535] says, MIB modules can often be characterized as a list of
ingredients without a recipe. ingredients without a recipe.
Management needs to be considered not only from the perspective of a
device, but also from the perspective of network and service
management perspectives. Often a network element is not aware of the
service being delivered.
[DISCUSS: Is a section on P2P vs. central management called for
here?]
WGs should consider how to configure multiple related/co-operating WGs should consider how to configure multiple related/co-operating
devices and how to back off if one of those configurations fails or devices and how to back off if one of those configurations fails or
causes trouble. NETCONF addresses this in a generic manner by causes trouble. NETCONF addresses this in a generic manner by
allowing an operator to lock the configuration on multiple devices, allowing an operator to lock the configuration on multiple devices,
perform the configuration settings/changes, check that they are OK perform the configuration settings/changes, check that they are OK
(undo if not) and then unlock the devices. (undo if not) and then unlock the devices.
Techniques for debugging protocol interactions in a network should be Techniques for debugging protocol interactions in a network must be
part of the network management discussion. Implementation source part of the network management discussion. Implementation source
code should be debugged before ever being added to a network, so code should be debugged before ever being added to a network, so
asserts and memory dumps do not normally belong in management data asserts and memory dumps do not normally belong in management data
models. However, debugging on-the-wire interactions is a protocol models. However, debugging on-the-wire interactions is a protocol
issue: it is enormously helpful if a protocol has hooks to make issue: it is enormously helpful if a protocol has hooks to make
debugging of network interactions easy, and/or is designed in such a debugging of network interactions easy, and/or is designed in such a
way that debugging protocol behaviors is easy. Hand-waving this away way that debugging protocol behaviors is easy. Hand-waving this away
is not something that operators like ... is not something that operators like ...
In a client/server protocol, it may be more important to instrument In a client/server protocol, it may be more important to instrument
skipping to change at page 11, line 36 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
central location, monitoring vendor-and-model-specific web pages central location, monitoring vendor-and-model-specific web pages
would be difficult to automate. would be difficult to automate.
Getting everybody to agree on a certain syntax and the protocol Getting everybody to agree on a certain syntax and the protocol
associated with that has proven to be difficult. So management associated with that has proven to be difficult. So management
systems tend to speak whatever the boxes support, whether the IETF systems tend to speak whatever the boxes support, whether the IETF
likes this or not. The IETF is moving from support for a single likes this or not. The IETF is moving from support for a single
management data modeling language (SMI [RFC2578]) and a single management data modeling language (SMI [RFC2578]) and a single
management protocol (SNMP [RFC3410]) towards support for additional management protocol (SNMP [RFC3410]) towards support for additional
management protocols and data models suited to different purposes, management protocols and data models suited to different purposes,
such as configuration (netconf [RFC4741]), usage accounting (ipfix such as configuration (netconf [RFC4741]), usage accounting (IPFIX
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol]), and logging (syslog [RFC5105]), and logging (syslog [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol])). Other
[I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol])). Other Standard Development Standard Development Organizations (e.g. DMTF, TMF) also define
Organizations (e.g. DMTF, TMF) also define management mechanisms and management mechanisms and these mechanisms may be more suitable than
these mechanisms may be more suitable than IETF mechanisms in some IETF mechanisms in some cases.
cases.
Interoperability needs to be considered on the syntactic level and Interoperability needs to be considered on the syntactic level and
the semantic level. While it can be irritating and time-consuming, the semantic level. While it can be irritating and time-consuming,
application designers including operators who write their own scripts application designers including operators who write their own scripts
can make their processing conditional to accommodate differences can make their processing conditional to accommodate differences
across vendors or models or releases of product. across vendors or models or releases of product.
Semantic differences are much harder to deal with on the manager side Semantic differences are much harder to deal with on the manager side
- once you have the data, its meaning is a function of the managed - once you have the data, its meaning is a function of the managed
entity. For example, if a single counter provided by vendor A counts entity. For example, if a single counter provided by vendor A counts
skipping to change at page 14, line 21 skipping to change at page 14, line 48
If notifications are used to alert operators to certain conditions, If notifications are used to alert operators to certain conditions,
then the protocol designer should discuss mechanisms to throttle then the protocol designer should discuss mechanisms to throttle
notifications to prevent congestion and duplications of event notifications to prevent congestion and duplications of event
notifications. Will there be a hierarchy of faults, and will the notifications. Will there be a hierarchy of faults, and will the
fault reporting be done by each fault in the hierarchy, or will only fault reporting be done by each fault in the hierarchy, or will only
the lowest fault be reported and the higher levels be suppressed? the lowest fault be reported and the higher levels be suppressed?
should there be aggregated status indicators based on concatenation should there be aggregated status indicators based on concatenation
of propagated faults from a given domain or device? of propagated faults from a given domain or device?
SNMP notifications and SYSLOG messages can alert an operator when an SNMP notifications and SYSLOG messages can alert an operator when an
aspect of the new protocol fails or encounters an error condition, aspect of the new protocol fails or encounters an error or failure
and SNMP is frequently used as a heartbeat monitor. condition, and SNMP is frequently used as a heartbeat monitor.
Should the event reporting be reliable? [DISCUSS: what is reliable?]
Can we poll the latest events in the box?
4.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Liveness detection and monitoring applies both to the control plane Liveness detection and monitoring applies both to the control plane
and the data plane. Mechanisms for detecting faults in the control and the data plane. Mechanisms for detecting faults in the control
plane or for monitoring its liveness are usually built into the plane or for monitoring its liveness are usually built into the
control plane protocols or inherited from underlying data plane or control plane protocols or inherited from underlying data plane or
forwarding plane protocols. These mechanisms do not typically forwarding plane protocols. These mechanisms do not typically
require additional management capabilities. However, when a system require additional management capabilities. However, when a system
detects a control plane fault, there is often a requirement to detects a control plane fault, there is often a requirement to
skipping to change at page 15, line 13 skipping to change at page 15, line 43
management information. For example, counters might record instances management information. For example, counters might record instances
of error conditions. Some faults might be able to be pinpointed by of error conditions. Some faults might be able to be pinpointed by
comparing the outputs of one device and the inputs of another device comparing the outputs of one device and the inputs of another device
looking for anomalies. looking for anomalies.
[DISCUSS: Ralf: While this sounds good, how do you distinguish [DISCUSS: Ralf: While this sounds good, how do you distinguish
between faulty messages and good messages? It might require complex between faulty messages and good messages? It might require complex
functions such as deviation from normal, are you sure you want to functions such as deviation from normal, are you sure you want to
implement those at the device level?] implement those at the device level?]
[DISCUSS: Well, deviation from normal is certainly an NMS tasks,
while two neighbor interfaces could exchange simple fault counters in
PERCENTAGES that would give the neighbor a hint about issues. E.g.
if CRC errors are greater than 1% of total traffic both the neighbor
and the NMS could be notified to setup an alternative path/link, if
possible.]
4.3.3. Fault Isolation 4.3.3. Fault Isolation
It might be useful to isolate faults, such as a system that emits It might be useful to isolate faults, such as a system that emits
malformed messages necessary to coordinate connections properly. malformed messages necessary to coordinate connections properly.
Spanning tree comes to mind. This might be able to be done by Spanning tree comes to mind. This might be able to be done by
configuring next-hop devices to drop the faulty messages to prevent configuring next-hop devices to drop the faulty messages to prevent
them from entering the rest of the network. them from entering the rest of the network.
4.3.4. Corrective Action 4.3.4. Corrective Action
What sort of corrective action can be taken by an operator for each What sort of corrective action can be taken by an operator for each
of the fault conditions that are being identified? of the fault conditions that are being identified?
[DISCUSS: this should be expanded or eliminated.] [DISCUSS: this should be expanded or eliminated. If parallel paths
exist between two neighbor devices they could be activated. Not sure
how much further we can take the idea of automated correction
actions.]
[DISCUSS: Somewhere in the fault management section, we should have
pointers to some threshold-based mechanisms, such as RMON events/
alarms or the EVENT-MIB, with the message that we don't need to have
SNMP notifications for all events if we have the right counters that
can be polled as needed.]
4.4. Configuration Management 4.4. Configuration Management
RFC3139 [RFC3139] discusses requirements for configuration RFC3139 [RFC3139] discusses requirements for configuration
management. This document includes discussion of different levels of management. This document includes discussion of different levels of
management, including high-level-policies, network-wide configuration management, including high-level-policies, network-wide configuration
data, and device-local configuration. data, and device-local configuration.
A number of efforts have existed in the IETF to develop policy-based A number of efforts have existed in the IETF to develop policy-based
management. RFC3198 [RFC3198] was written to standardize the management. RFC3198 [RFC3198] was written to standardize the
skipping to change at page 16, line 10 skipping to change at page 17, line 10
To simplify such configuration comparisons, devices should not To simplify such configuration comparisons, devices should not
arbitrarily reorder data such as access control lists. If a protocol arbitrarily reorder data such as access control lists. If a protocol
designer defines mechanisms for configuration, it would be desirable designer defines mechanisms for configuration, it would be desirable
to standardize the order of elements for consistency of configuration to standardize the order of elements for consistency of configuration
and of reporting across vendors, and across releases from vendors. and of reporting across vendors, and across releases from vendors.
[DISCUSS: Ralf: Well, there are two parts to it: 1. An NMS system [DISCUSS: Ralf: Well, there are two parts to it: 1. An NMS system
could optimize ACLs for performance reasons 2. Unless the device/NMS could optimize ACLs for performance reasons 2. Unless the device/NMS
systems has correct rules/a lot of experience, reordering ACLs can systems has correct rules/a lot of experience, reordering ACLs can
lead to a huge security issue, therefore I would rephrase this lead to a huge security issue, therefore I would rephrase this
paragraph. " paragraph.]
Network wide configurations are ideally stored in central master Network wide configurations are ideally stored in central master
databases and transformed into formats that can be pushed to devices, databases and transformed into formats that can be pushed to devices,
either by generating sequences of CLI commands or complete either by generating sequences of CLI commands or complete
configuration files that are pushed to devices. There is no common configuration files that are pushed to devices. There is no common
database schema for network configuration, although the models used database schema for network configuration, although the models used
by various operators are probably very similar. It is desirable to by various operators are probably very similar. It is desirable to
extract, document, and standardize the common parts of these network extract, document, and standardize the common parts of these network
wide configuration database schemas. A protocol designer should wide configuration database schemas. A protocol designer should
consider how to standardize the common parts of configuring the new consider how to standardize the common parts of configuring the new
skipping to change at page 16, line 38 skipping to change at page 17, line 38
configuration and "candidate" configurations. configuration and "candidate" configurations.
[DISCUSS: Also add: backup configurations, i.e. version n-1 and auto- [DISCUSS: Also add: backup configurations, i.e. version n-1 and auto-
fallback solutions that automatically return to the previous known fallback solutions that automatically return to the previous known
good configuration or adding a backdoor for the operator. One of the good configuration or adding a backdoor for the operator. One of the
worst scenarios is remote device configuration where the new running worst scenarios is remote device configuration where the new running
configuration does not work as expected and unlocks the admin. configuration does not work as expected and unlocks the admin.
Vendors may have ways to avoid unlocking the operator but this does Vendors may have ways to avoid unlocking the operator but this does
not have to be vendor specific.] not have to be vendor specific.]
[DISCUSS: 1. Describe the concept of a "Gold config" and updating it
frequently 2. Describe a "backdoor" undo strategy ]
It is important to enable operators to concentrate on the It is important to enable operators to concentrate on the
configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual
devices. Support for configuration transactions across a number of devices. Support for configuration transactions across a number of
devices would significantly simplify network configuration devices would significantly simplify network configuration
management. The ability to distribute configurations to multiple management. The ability to distribute configurations to multiple
devices, or modify "candidate configurations on multiple devices, and devices, or modify "candidate configurations on multiple devices, and
then activate them in a near-simultaneous manner might help. then activate them in a near-simultaneous manner might help.
[DISCUSS: Ralf: This might be a good place for adding the description [DISCUSS: Ralf: This might be a good place for adding the description
of configuration-templates.] of configuration-templates.]
skipping to change at page 17, line 18 skipping to change at page 18, line 21
configurations from/to devices are desirable. configurations from/to devices are desirable.
Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be possible to Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be possible to
generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with minimal generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with minimal
state changes and effects on network and systems. It is important to state changes and effects on network and systems. It is important to
minimize the impact caused by configuration changes. minimize the impact caused by configuration changes.
Many protocol specifications include timers that are used as part of Many protocol specifications include timers that are used as part of
operation of the protocol. These timers may need default values operation of the protocol. These timers may need default values
suggested in the protocol specification and do not need to be suggested in the protocol specification and do not need to be
otherwise configurable. otherwise configurable. [DISCUSS: mention NTP?]
4.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation 4.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation
An important function that might be provided is a tool set for An important function that should be provided is a tool set for
verifying the correct operation of a protocol. This may be achieved verifying the correct operation of a protocol. This may be achieved
to some extent through access to information and data models that to some extent through access to information and data models that
report the status of the protocol and the state installed on network report the status of the protocol and the state installed on network
devices. It may also be valuable to provide techniques for testing devices. It may also be valuable to provide techniques for testing
the effect that the protocol has had on the network by sending data the effect that the protocol has had on the network by sending data
through the network and observing its behavior. through the network and observing its behavior. [DISCUSS: Before
deploying? Before operating? How to achieve this?]
Protocol designers should consider how to test the correct end-to-end Protocol designers should consider how to test the correct end-to-end
operation of the network, and how to verify the correct data or operation of the network, and how to verify the correct data or
forwarding plane function of each network element. forwarding plane function of each network element.
4.4.2. Control of Function and Policy 4.4.2. Control of Function and Policy
A protocol designer should consider the configurable items that exist A protocol designer should consider the configurable items that exist
for the control of function via the protocol elements described in for the control of function via the protocol elements described in
the protocol specification. For example, Sometimes the protocol the protocol specification. For example, Sometimes the protocol
skipping to change at page 17, line 47 skipping to change at page 19, line 4
for the control of function via the protocol elements described in for the control of function via the protocol elements described in
the protocol specification. For example, Sometimes the protocol the protocol specification. For example, Sometimes the protocol
requires that timers can be configured by the operator to ensure requires that timers can be configured by the operator to ensure
specific policy-based behavior by the implementation. specific policy-based behavior by the implementation.
4.5. Accounting Management 4.5. Accounting Management
A protocol designer should consider whether it would be appropriate A protocol designer should consider whether it would be appropriate
to collect usage information related to this protocol, and if so, to collect usage information related to this protocol, and if so,
what usage information would be appropriate to collect? what usage information would be appropriate to collect?
RFC2975 [RFC2975] Introduction to Accounting Management discusses a RFC2975 [RFC2975] Introduction to Accounting Management discusses a
number of factors relevant to monitoring usage of protocols for number of factors relevant to monitoring usage of protocols for
purposes of capacity and trend analysis, cost allocation, auditing, purposes of capacity and trend analysis, cost allocation, auditing,
and billing. This document also discusses how RADIUS [RFC2865], and billing. This document also discusses how RADIUS [RFC2865],
TACACS+ [RFC1492], and SNMP protocols are used for these purposes. TACACS+ [RFC1492], SNMP, IPFIX, and PSAMP protocols can be used for
These factors should be considered when designing a protocol whose these purposes. These factors should be considered when designing a
usage might need to be monitored, or when recommending a protocol to protocol whose usage might need to be monitored, or when recommending
do usage accounting. a protocol to do usage accounting.
4.6. Performance Management 4.6. Performance Management
Consider information that would be useful when trying to determine Consider information that would be useful when trying to determine
the performance characteristics of a deployed system using the target the performance characteristics of a deployed system using the target
protocol. protocol.
What are the principal performance factors that need to be looked at What are the principal performance factors that need to be looked at
when measuring the efficiency of the protocol implementations? Is it when measuring the operational performance of the protocol
important to measure setup times? throughput? quality versus implementations? Is it important to measure setup times? throughput?
throughput? interruptions? end-to-end throughput? end-to-end quality? quality versus throughput? interruptions? end-to-end throughput? end-
hop-to-hop throughput? to-end quality? hop-to-hop throughput?
Consider scalability, such as whether performance will be affected by Consider scalability, such as whether performance will be affected by
the number of protocol connections. If so, then it might be useful the number of protocol connections. If so, then it might be useful
to provide information about the maximum number of table entries that to provide information about the maximum number of table entries that
should be expected to be modeled, how many entries an implementation should be expected to be modeled, how many entries an implementation
can support, the current number of instances, and the expected can support, the current number of instances, and the expected
behavior when the current instances exceed the capacity of the behavior when the current instances exceed the capacity of the
implementation. This should be considered in a data-modeling implementation. This should be considered in a data-modeling
independent manner - what makes managed-protocol sense, not what independent manner - what makes managed-protocol sense, not what
makes management-protocol-sense. If it is not managed-protocol- makes management-protocol-sense. If it is not managed-protocol-
dependent, then it should be left for the management-protocol data dependent, then it should be left for the management-protocol data
modelers to decide. modelers to decide. For example, VLAN identifiers have a range of
1..4095 because of the VLAN standards. A MIB implementing a VLAN
For example, VLAN identifiers have a range of 1..4095 because of the table should be able to support 4096 entries because the content
VLAN standards. being modeled requires it.
Consider operational activity, such as the number of message in and Consider operational activity, such as the number of message in and
the messages out, the number of received messages rejected due to the messages out, the number of received messages rejected due to
format problems, the expected behaviors when a malformed message is format problems, the expected behaviors when a malformed message is
received. received.
Consider the expected behaviors for counters - what is a reasonable Consider the expected behaviors for counters - what is a reasonable
maximum value for expected usage? should they stop counting at the maximum value for expected usage? should they stop counting at the
maximum value and retain the maximum value, or should they rollover? maximum value and retain the maximum value, or should they rollover?
How can users determine if a rollover has occurred, and how can users How can users determine if a rollover has occurred, and how can users
skipping to change at page 19, line 12 skipping to change at page 20, line 16
Could events, such as hot-swapping a blade in a chassis, cause Could events, such as hot-swapping a blade in a chassis, cause
discontinuities in information? Does this make any difference in discontinuities in information? Does this make any difference in
evaluating the performance of a protocol? evaluating the performance of a protocol?
Consider whether multiple management applications will share a Consider whether multiple management applications will share a
counter; if so, then no one management application should be allowed counter; if so, then no one management application should be allowed
to reset the value to zero since this will impact other applications. to reset the value to zero since this will impact other applications.
For performance monitoring, it is often important to report the time For performance monitoring, it is often important to report the time
spent in a state rather than the current state. Snapshots are of spent in a state rather than the current state. Snapshots are of
less value for performance monitoring. less value for performance monitoring. [DISCUSS: please elaborate]
The Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) has defined recommendations The Benchmarking Methodology WG (bmwg) has defined recommendations
for the measurement of the performance characteristics of various for the measurement of the performance characteristics of various
internetworking technologies in a laboratory environment, including internetworking technologies in a laboratory environment, including
the systems or services that are built from these technologies. Each the systems or services that are built from these technologies. Each
recommendation describes the class of equipment, system, or service recommendation describes the class of equipment, system, or service
being addressed; discuss the performance characteristics that are being addressed; discuss the performance characteristics that are
pertinent to that class; clearly identify a set of metrics that aid pertinent to that class; clearly identify a set of metrics that aid
in the description of those characteristics; specify the in the description of those characteristics; specify the
methodologies required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present methodologies required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present
the requirements for the common, unambiguous reporting of the requirements for the common, unambiguous reporting of
benchmarking results. benchmarking results.
[DISCUSS: there are several parts to performance management. Device
monitoring (with the impact of the new protocol/service activation),
protocol monitoring, and services monitoring. This section might
benefit from being broken into different pieces.]
4.7. Security Management 4.7. Security Management
Protocol designers should consider how to monitor and to manage Protocol designers should consider how to monitor and to manage
security aspects and vulnerabilities of the new protocol. security aspects and vulnerabilities of the new protocol.
There will be security considerations related to the new protocol. There will be security considerations related to the new protocol.
To make it possible for operators to be aware of security-related To make it possible for operators to be aware of security-related
events, it is recommended that system logs should record events, such events, it is recommended that system logs should record events, such
as failed logins, but the logs must be secured. as failed logins, but the logs must be secured.
skipping to change at page 20, line 18 skipping to change at page 21, line 27
where a user can be given only the minimum access necessary to where a user can be given only the minimum access necessary to
perform a required task. perform a required task.
It must be possible to do consistency checks of access control lists It must be possible to do consistency checks of access control lists
across devices. Protocol designers should consider information across devices. Protocol designers should consider information
models to promote comparisons across devices and across vendors to models to promote comparisons across devices and across vendors to
permit checking the consistency of security configurations. permit checking the consistency of security configurations.
Protocol designers should consider how to provide a secure transport, Protocol designers should consider how to provide a secure transport,
authentication, identity, and access control which integrates well authentication, identity, and access control which integrates well
with existing key and credential management infrastructure. with existing key and credential management infrastructure. It is a
good idea to start with defining the threat model for the protocol,
and from that deducing what is required.
Protocol designers should consider how ACLs (access control lists) Protocol designers should consider how access control lists are
are maintained and updated. maintained and updated.
Standard SNMP notifications or SYSLOG messages Standard SNMP notifications or SYSLOG messages
[I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] might already exist, or can be defined, to [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] might already exist, or can be defined, to
alert operators to the conditions identified in the security alert operators to the conditions identified in the security
considerations for the new protocol. [DISCUSS: can somebody provide considerations for the new protocol. [DISCUSS: can somebody provide
an example of an existing notifications or syslog messages related to an example of an existing notifications or syslog messages related to
security, other than SNMPv3-specific notifications?] security, other than SNMPv3-specific notifications?]
An analysis of existing counters might help operators recognize the An analysis of existing counters might help operators recognize the
conditions identified in the security considerations for the new conditions identified in the security considerations for the new
skipping to change at page 23, line 8 skipping to change at page 24, line 20
within the Routing Area of the IETF. That earlier work was produced within the Routing Area of the IETF. That earlier work was produced
by Avri Doria, Loa Andersson, and Adrian Farrel, with valuable by Avri Doria, Loa Andersson, and Adrian Farrel, with valuable
feedback provided by Pekka Savola and Bert Wijnen. feedback provided by Pekka Savola and Bert Wijnen.
Some of the discussion about designing for manageability came from Some of the discussion about designing for manageability came from
private discussions between Dan Romascanu, Bert Wijnen, Juergen private discussions between Dan Romascanu, Bert Wijnen, Juergen
Schoenwaelder, Andy Bierman, and David Harrington. Schoenwaelder, Andy Bierman, and David Harrington.
9. Informative References 9. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] Claise, B., "Specification of the IPFIX
Protocol for the Exchange of IP Traffic
Flow Information",
draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-26 (work in
progress), September 2007.
[I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] Gerhards, R., "The syslog Protocol", [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] Gerhards, R., "The syslog Protocol",
draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-23 (work in draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-23 (work in
progress), September 2007. progress), September 2007.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts
and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034,
November 1987. November 1987.
[RFC1052] Cerf, V., "IAB recommendations for the [RFC1052] Cerf, V., "IAB recommendations for the
development of Internet network development of Internet network
skipping to change at page 25, line 38 skipping to change at page 26, line 44
"Information Model for Describing Network "Information Model for Describing Network
Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms", Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms",
RFC 3670, January 2004. RFC 3670, January 2004.
[RFC3805] Bergman, R., Lewis, H., and I. McDonald, [RFC3805] Bergman, R., Lewis, H., and I. McDonald,
"Printer MIB v2", RFC 3805, June 2004. "Printer MIB v2", RFC 3805, June 2004.
[RFC4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration [RFC4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration
Protocol", RFC 4741, December 2006. Protocol", RFC 4741, December 2006.
[RFC5105] Lendl, O., "ENUM Validation Token Format
Definition", RFC 5105, December 2007.
Appendix A. Review Checklist Appendix A. Review Checklist
This appendix provides a quick summary of issues to consider. This appendix provides a quick summary of issues to consider.
A.1. General Document Checklist A.1. General Document Checklist
Is the document readable? Is the document readable?
Does it contain nits? Does it contain nits?
skipping to change at page 27, line 28 skipping to change at page 28, line 37
considerations considerations
[DISCUSS: How much of RFC 3535 and RFC 3139 should be repeated [DISCUSS: How much of RFC 3535 and RFC 3139 should be repeated
(and updated) in these guidelines? There are many best current (and updated) in these guidelines? There are many best current
practices mentioned in those documents. Should we bring them practices mentioned in those documents. Should we bring them
together into this document and expand on how they should together into this document and expand on how they should
influence ops/mgmt considerations for a new protocol? Many of the influence ops/mgmt considerations for a new protocol? Many of the
points relate to NM protocol design, but there are also many points relate to NM protocol design, but there are also many
points about operational and management considerations.] points about operational and management considerations.]
Appendix C. Change Log Appendix C. DISCUSSES that have yet to be discussed
All of these discusses have been copied from the text. They all need
discussion and proposed text before the editor will know what needs
to be put into the document.
[DISCUSS: examples, list of current protocols characteristics and
their impact on the network. e.g., burst traffic impact on network
congestion.]
[DISCUSS: would the example of inconsistency between MIB counters
that cannot be reset and CLI counters that can be rest be useful
here?]
[DISCUSS: this could use a good example of when a protocol
designer should consider future extensions to the management. Are
we talking about writing extensible data models? ]
[DISCUSS: is this paragraph really about protocol design for
operability or about operational practice? If this stays, it
probably needs a bit more discussion on database driven
configurations, and how protocol design would be impacted by the
expectation of database-driven configuration. ]
[DISCUSS: this needs rewording to better describe consistency
checking 1) over time, and 2) between ends of a link. probably
needs a bit more discussion on the need to be able to understand
and check what it is happening on the wire actually matches what
the Operator tried to configure. Basically, complexity is your
enemy here, and that cannot be stressed often enough (no idea how
you can verify whether for example a SIP application is actually
doing what it is supposed to do due to the complexity).]
[DISCUSS: Is a section on P2P vs. central management called for
here?]
[DISCUSS: what is reliable?]
[DISCUSS: can somebody provide an example?]
[DISCUSS: Ralf: While this sounds good, how do you distinguish
between faulty messages and good messages? It might require
complex functions such as deviation from normal, are you sure you
want to implement those at the device level?]
[DISCUSS: Well, deviation from normal is certainly an NMS tasks,
while two neighbor interfaces could exchange simple fault counters
in PERCENTAGES that would give the neighbor a hint about issues.
E.g. if CRC errors are greater than 1% of total traffic both the
neighbor and the NMS could be notified to setup an alternative
path/link, if possible.]
[DISCUSS: this should be expanded or eliminated. If parallel
paths exist between two neighbor devices they could be activated.
Not sure how much further we can take the idea of automated
correction actions.]
[DISCUSS: Somewhere in the fault management section, we should
have pinters to some threshold-based mechanisms, such as RMON
events/alarms or the EVENT-MIB, with the message that we don't
need to have SNMP notifications for all events if we have the
right counters that can be polled as needed.]
[DISCUSS: Ralf: Well, there are two parts to it: 1. An NMS system
could optimize ACLs for performance reasons 2. Unless the device/
NMS systems has correct rules/a lot of experience, reordering ACLs
can lead to a huge security issue, therefore I would rephrase this
paragraph.]
[DISCUSS: Also add: backup configurations, i.e. version n-1 and
auto-fallback solutions that automatically return to the previous
known good configuration or adding a backdoor for the operator.
One of the worst scenarios is remote device configuration where
the new running configuration does not work as expected and
unlocks the admin. Vendors may have ways to avoid unlocking the
operator but this does not have to be vendor specific.]
[DISCUSS: 1. Describe the concept of a "Gold config" and updating
it frequently 2. Describe a "backdoor" undo strategy ]
[DISCUSS: Ralf: This might be a good place for adding the
description of configuration-templates.]
[DISCUSS: mention NTP?]
[DISCUSS: Before deploying? Before operating? How to achieve
this?]
[DISCUSS: please elaborate]
[DISCUSS: there are several parts to performance management.
Device monitoring (with the impact of the new protocol/service
activation), protocol monitoring, and services monitoring. This
section might benefit from being broken into different pieces.]
[DISCUSS: can somebody provide an example of an existing
notifications or syslog messages related to security, other than
SNMPv3-specific notifications?]
[DISCUSS: How much of RFC 3535 and RFC 3139 should be repeated
(and updated) in these guidelines? There are many best current
practices mentioned in those documents. Should we bring them
together into this document and expand on how they should
influence ops/mgmt considerations for a new protocol? Many of the
points relate to NM protocol design, but there are also many
points about operational and management considerations.]
Appendix D. Change Log
Changes from opsawg-02 to opsawg-03 Changes from opsawg-02 to opsawg-03
From reviews by Lixia Zhang and feedback from WG Chairs' Lunch. From reviews by Lixia Zhang and feedback from WG Chairs' Lunch.
added discussion of impact on the Internet to checklist added discussion of impact on the Internet to checklist
spell check spell check
added examples added examples
skipping to change at page 30, line 44 skipping to change at line 1537
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
105 lines changed or deleted 256 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/