Subject: [OPSAWG] Feedback on WG work items

From: Carl Moberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:08:04 +0200

Dear OPSAWG,

  I thought I'd take the opportunity to do something unusual; provide
  general feedback (aka "my USD .02") on the usefulness of two WG items,
  namely:
   draft-ietf-opsawg-automated-network-configuration
   draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds

  They are useful. The general level of understanding of available
  protocols and practices in "the industry" (lacking a more precise
  term) is at times alarming. The effects I see are wide and deep ranging
  from Not Invented Here attitudes in it's different shapes ("Oh, I
  didn't know that existed, well, I wrote one myself") to a confusion
  around general direction so profound it seems to actually increase the
  attractiveness of proprietary solutions to well known, well researched
  problems.

  These two drafts provide useful and focused sources of information to
  address this problem of under- (and sometimes dis-) information about
  existing and potential future network management technologies and
  practices. They are developing to become great baselines for further
  discussions about what should be done formally and informally to
  improve the state of network management as it is.

  As a personal favorite, I think Section 8, "Missing Specifications"
  of automated-network-configuration reads like a laundry list of future
  activities that I think the IETF is in the right position to take on.

  In summary: great, useful work, thanks and please keep going.

Regards,
-- 
Carl Moberg
Tail-f Systems

mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.tail-f.com

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:53:08 +0200

Hi, 

Thanks Carl for the feedback. 

As AD I would like to see more of such opinions in the OPSAWG (and other
WGs in OPS). I would also like to see expressed open opinions when
somebody considers some stuff not useful or worse - harmful. Such
opinions may be expressed at any time in the life cycle of documents,
but especially when the documents are in Last Calls (WGLC, IETF LC) as
we have in many cases low numbers and difficulty in assessing consensus
for some documents. 

Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Carl Moberg
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 3:08 PM
> To: IETF OPSAWG
> Subject: [OPSAWG] Feedback on WG work items
> 
> Dear OPSAWG,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg