Subject: [OPS-AREA] Notes from the OPS Area meeting on Monday

From: "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:54:55 +0200

We are still missing the notes from the Monday OPS Area meeting. The
designated note takers or folks who have just taken notes are kindly
asked to send to Ron and me their notes. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:56:35 -0400

Hi,

These are my notes for the OPS Area meeting on Monday. 
(Thanks to Benoit for capturing Q&A while I was at the mike
pontificating.)

OPS Area Open Meeting

Dan R welcomes Ron Bonica
Dan R thanks David Kessens

Dan introduces O&M guidelines as IESG-requested
Needs more contributors

Dbh presents slides - "Operability and Manageability Considerations"

<Q&A belongs here>

Tom Taylor presents slides for a COPS-PR extension

Q&A:
Sharon chisholm: why COPS? because COPS is (apparently) going away
Unidentified woman (possibly Tina?): working at the ITU-T, still some
interest
Kevin Johnson: in the draft, not quite cleared if a new message was
used.
Tom: draft proposes a new message but could also use a flag, which is
the less violent solution. Discussion of the collision of handles

Dbh: there are two questions to answer.
question 1: is COPS going away? Worth it? Little update in the
industry. Should this be part of the manageability work (his
mini-BOF)? Should we move COPS to experimental or not recommended?
    question 2: technical decision whether change is the right one?
Scott Bradner:
    Answer Dave's first question. some enthusiasm for COPS at the 
 beginning, then faded away
          Interest in ITU. If another non-IETF group wants to use
COPS, why stand in their way?
Dave: "I can agree with that; somebody once said that the IETF doesn't
produce standards, but technologies; other organizations produce
standards"

Dan (to Tom): what is your preferred solution? 
Tom: A standard document with the COPS update . ITU and IETF would
progress this in parallel (approve in ITU-T as an annex), and then
have IETF (tweak and) approve it, and then update ITU-T to reference
the RFC.
Scott: This parallel approach has been problematic in the past. It
should either be done in ITU or in IETF, but not both.
Tina: I think this can be done
Dan: another approach is that the ITU-T can publish an Informational
document. I do not want to take a position at this point. ITU should
also consider what happens 
DavePartain: I think there will be little energy to do this in the
IETF, so it should be done in ITU.
Bert: I do not know if COPS-PR is being used or not; I know I do not
want to spend time working on COPS-PR. Is anybody interested in
working on it (including review any work done by ITU?)
Tom: Does anybody work for an organization that uses COPS-PR? 
One person raised their hands (Tina Tsou from Huawei)
Tom: Is there any interest in working on COPS-PR extensions? 
Dan: these questions should be asked on the OPS lists and ITU lists.

Dbh presents slides - "Operations and Management Capability for IP
network Infrastructure"

<Q&A goes here>