Subject: [OPSAWG] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:54:36 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm putting this in as a DISCUSS in the event that the authors/WG want to
discuss it or that I'm just missing some context, but I will happily move
to ABSTAIN if there is no appetite for such discussion -- I see no need
to block the document from advancing on the basis of my comments.

It's really hard to tell how the "requirements" listed in this document
are intended to be used. In fact, it seems incorrect to call them
"requirements" at all -- in the sense of somehow being "required" --
given the following:

   This document provides a problem statement and lists potential
   requirements for the management of a network with constrained
   devices. ... Depending on the concrete
   circumstances, an implementer may decide to address a certain
   relevant subset of the requirements.
...
   This document in general
   does not recommend the realization of any subset of the described
   requirements.  As such this document avoids selecting any of the
   requirements as mandatory to implement.  A device might be able to
   provide only a particular selected set of requirements and might not
   be capable to provide all requirements in this document.  On the
   other hand a device vendor might select a specific relevant subset of
   the requirements to implement.

It's hard to see how the approach described above will contribute towards
useful standardization. The "requirements" seem more like a laundry list
of all the properties that a management architecture, management
protocols, networks of constrained devices, and/or individual
implementations might find desirable. 

This also makes me wonder how the WG intends for these "requirements" to
be used. What is the next step as far as standardization goes? To design
the "management architecture" that is mentioned? Or the "management
protocols" that are mentioned -- one or more, working together or
separately? Or to consider how existing management protocols can be
repurposed for constrained networks (which is sort of hinted at in
section 2, but not stated explicitly), to meet some undefined subset of
the listed "requirements"?

I think publishing a laundry list of desirable properties is ok if people
find value in it, but I'm having trouble seeing how this document
specifies either a problem statement or requirements that will somehow
contribute to standardization efforts in the future.

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:11:49 +0000

Hi Alissa,

Let me try to address the issues that you are raising. The coman team worked as a non-WG team for about 2-3 years, and only at the last phase of the work decided to send the two resulting informational documents to the OPSAWG for a broader review and exposure, at the advice of our AD. The two documents are informational, one describes the use cases and the second one the requirements for the broader space discussed by the use cases related to management of networks with constrained devices.. One of the conclusions of the work is that we do not believe that there is one single solution that would fit all use cases, this there is no single set of mandatory requirements that apply to all the use cases. No follow-up work is planned in OPS. We feel however that the two informational documents will be useful for further reference for these teams or WGs that try to build management solutions for one or more of the use cases. 

In order to make the goals of the document more clear we suggest the following edits: 

In Abstract: 

OLD: 

  This document provides a problem statement, deployment and management
   topology options as well as potential requirements for the management
   of networks where constrained devices are involved.

NEW: 

  This document provides a problem statement, deployment and management
   topology options as well as requirements addressing the different use cases of 
   the management of networks where constrained devices are involved.

In Section 1.1: 

OLD: 

  This document provides a problem statement and lists potential
   requirements for the management of a network with constrained
   devices.  Section 1.3 and Section 1.5 describe different topology
   options for the networking and management of constrained devices.
   Section 2 provides a problem statement on the issue of the management
   of networked constrained devices.  Section 3 lists requirements on
   the management of applications and networks with constrained devices.
   Note that the requirements listed in Section 3 have been separated
   from the context in which they may appear.  Depending on the concrete
   circumstances, an implementer may decide to address a certain
   relevant subset of the requirements.

   The use cases in the context of networks with constrained devices can
   be found in the companion document [COM-USE].

NEW: 

   This document provides a problem statement and lists requirements for the 
   different use cases of management of a network with constrained
   devices.  Section 1.3 and Section 1.5 describe different topology
   options for the networking and management of constrained devices.
   Section 2 provides a problem statement on the issue of the management
   of networked constrained devices.  Section 3 lists requirements on
   the management of applications and networks with constrained devices.
   Note that the requirements listed in Section 3 have been separated
   from the context in which they may appear.  Depending on the concrete
   circumstances, an implementer may decide to address a certain
   relevant subset of the requirements.

   The use cases in the context of networks with constrained devices can
   be found in the companion document [COM-USE]. This informational 
   document provides a list of objectives for discussions and does not aim 
   to be a strict requirements document for all use cases. In fact, there likely 
   is not a single solution that works equally well for all the use cases.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 1:55 AM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-
> 04: (with DISCUSS)
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
> paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-
> 2Dcriteria.html&d=AwICaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31Oc
> NXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=LRTLiND5zLlekWUmsFoaVKjkrugZ
> M-KnuAq0u86hymQ&s=eJjAd-
> BOQzGyu9hy1bhI6vQIl7xsHAWMzBLsPjwGVPU&e=
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dopsawg-2Dcoman-
> 2Dprobstate-
> 2Dreqs_&d=AwICaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQ
> zvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=LRTLiND5zLlekWUmsFoaVKjkrugZM-
> KnuAq0u86hymQ&s=KmEim4gFKCTNKbrps2bQskPznlkrThRg-
> bO0gjTvxEM&e=
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:11:49 +0000

Hi Alissa,

In Abstract: 

OLD: 

NEW: 

In Section 1.1: 

OLD: 

NEW: 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:42:01 -0800

I did not manage to get to this before heading out on maternity leave, so I will change my ballot to abstain and have you all handle it as you wish.

Thanks,
Alissa

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:42:01 -0800

Thanks,
Alissa