draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-07.txt   draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-08.txt 
Network Working Group D. Harrington Network Working Group D. Harrington
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies USA Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies USA
Intended status: BCP May 11, 2009 Intended status: BCP June 23, 2009
Expires: November 12, 2009 Expires: December 25, 2009
Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols
and Protocol Extensions and Protocol Extensions
draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-07 draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-management-08
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 November 12, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 2009.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 3, line 7
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
protocols. Retrofitting operations and management is sub-optimal. protocols. 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,
about covering aspects of operations and management that should be about covering aspects of operations and management that should be
considered. considered.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.1. Designing for Operations and Management . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Designing for Operations and Management . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.4. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5. Available Management Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.5. Available Management Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.6. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Operational Considerations - How Will the New Protocol Fit 2. Operational Considerations - How Will the New Protocol Fit
Into the Current Environment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Into the Current Environment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Operations Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1. Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional 2.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3. Management Considerations - How Will The Protocol be 3. Management Considerations - How Will The Protocol be
Managed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Managed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.1. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.1. Information Model Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.1. Information Model Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.3. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3.2. Fault Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.2. Fault Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3.3. Root Cause Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.3. Root Cause Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.3.4. Fault Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.4. Fault Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.4. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4.2. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.5. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.5. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.6. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.6.1. Monitoring the Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.6.1. Monitoring the Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.6.2. Monitoring the Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6.2. Monitoring the Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.6.3. Monitoring the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6.3. Monitoring the Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.6.4. Monitoring the Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6.4. Monitoring the Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4. Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.1. Recommended Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1. Recommended Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2. Null Manageability Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . 27
4.2. Null Manageability Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . 25
4.3. Placement of Operations and Manageability 4.3. Placement of Operations and Manageability
Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. Operations and Management Review Checklist . . . . . 30 Appendix A. Operations and Management Review Checklist . . . . . 32
A.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 A.1. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 A.2. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.3. Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 A.3. Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
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. This document provides guidelines to
management may impact the success of IETF protocols, this document help protocol designers and working groups consider the operations
provides guidelines to help protocol designers and working groups and management functionality for their new IETF protocol or protocol
consider the operations and management functionality needed by their extension at an earlier phase.
new IETF protocol or protocol extension at an earlier phase.
1.1. Designing for Operations and Management 1.1. Designing for Operations and Management
The operational environment and manageability of the protocol should The operational environment and manageability of the protocol should
be considered from the start when new protocols are designed. be considered from the start when new protocols are designed.
Most of the existing IETF management standards are focused on using
SMI-based data models (MIB modules) to monitor and manage networking
devices. As the Internet has grown, IETF protocols have addressed a
constantly growing set of needs, such as web servers and
collaboration services and applications. The number of IETF
management technologies has been expanding and the IETF management
strategy has been changing to address the emerging management
requirements. The discussion of emerging sets of management
requirements has a long history in the IETF. The set of management
protocols you should use depends on what you are managing.
Protocol designers should consider which operations and management Protocol designers should consider which operations and management
needs are relevant to their protocol, document how those needs could needs are relevant to their protocol, document how those needs could
be addressed, and suggest standard management protocols and data be addressed, and suggest (preferably standard) management protocols
models that could be used to address those needs. This is similar to and data models that could be used to address those needs. This is
a working group (WG) that considers which security threats are similar to a working group (WG) that considers which security threats
relevant to their protocol, documents how threats should be are relevant to their protocol, documents how threats should be
mitigated, and then suggests appropriate standard protocols that mitigated, and then suggests appropriate standard protocols that
could mitigate the threats. could mitigate the threats.
When a WG considers operation and management functionality for a When a WG considers operation and management functionality for a
protocol, the document should contain enough information to protocol, the document should contain enough information to
understand how the protocol will be deployed and managed, but the WG understand how the protocol will be deployed and managed, and the WG
should expect that considerations for operations and management may should expect that considerations for operations and management may
need to be updated in the future, after further operational need to be updated in the future, after further operational
experience has been gained. experience has been gained.
1.2. This Document 1.2. This Document
This document makes a distinction between "Operational This document makes a distinction between "Operational
Considerations" and "Management Considerations", although the two are Considerations" and "Management Considerations", although the two are
closely related. The section on manageability is focused on closely related. The section on manageability is focused on
management technology such as how to utilize management protocols and management technology such as how to utilize management protocols and
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 6, line 50
questions to consider, which a protocol designer or reviewer can use questions to consider, which a protocol designer or reviewer can use
to evaluate whether the protocol and documentation address common to evaluate whether the protocol and documentation address common
operations and management needs. Operations and management are operations and management needs. Operations and management are
highly dependent on their environment, so most guidelines are highly dependent on their environment, so most guidelines are
subjective rather than objective. subjective rather than objective.
1.3. Motivation 1.3. Motivation
For years the IETF community has used the IETF Standard Management For years the IETF community has used the IETF Standard Management
Framework, including the Simple Network Management Protocol Framework, including the Simple Network Management Protocol
[RFC3410], the Structure of Management Informatiion [RFC2578], and [RFC3410], the Structure of Management Information [RFC2578], and MIB
MIB data models for managing new protocols. As the Internet has data models for managing new protocols. As the Internet has evolved,
evolved, operators have found the reliance on one protocol and one operators have found the reliance on one protocol and one schema
schema language for managing all aspects of the Internet inadequate. language for managing all aspects of the Internet inadequate. The
The IESG policy to require working groups to write a MIB module to IESG policy to require working groups to write a MIB module to
provide manageability for new protocols is being replaced by a policy provide manageability for new protocols is being replaced by a policy
that is more open to using a variety of management protocols and data that is more open to using a variety of management protocols and data
models designed to achieve different goals. models designed to achieve different goals.
This document provides some initial guidelines for considering This document provides some initial guidelines for considering
operations and management in an IETF Management Framework that operations and management in an IETF Management Framework that
consists of multiple protocols and multiple data modeling languages, consists of multiple protocols and multiple data modeling languages,
with an eye toward being flexible while also striving for with an eye toward being flexible while also striving for
interoperability. interoperability.
Fully new protocols may require significant consideration of expected
operations and management, while extensions to existing widely-
deployed protocols may have established defacto operations and
management practices that are already well understood.
Suitable management approaches may vary for different areas, working
groups, and protocols in the IETF. This document does not prescribe
a fixed solution or format in dealing with operational and management
aspects of IETF protocols. However, these aspects should be
considered for any IETF protocol, because we develop technologies and
protocols to be deployed and operated in the real world Internet. It
is fine if a WG decides that its protocol does not need interoperable
management or no standardized data model, but this should be a
deliberate decision, not the result of omission. This document
provides some guidelines for those considerations.
1.4. Background 1.4. Background
There have been a significant number of efforts, meetings, and There have been a significant number of efforts, meetings, and
documents that are related to Internet operations and management. documents that are related to Internet operations and management.
Some of them are mentioned here, to help protocol designers find Some of them are mentioned here, to help protocol designers find
documentation of previous efforts. Hopefully, providing these documentation of previous efforts. Hopefully, providing these
references will help the IETF avoid rehashing old discussions and references will help the IETF avoid rehashing old discussions and
reinventing old solutions. reinventing old solutions.
In 1988, the IAB published IAB Recommendations for the Development of In 1988, the IAB published IAB Recommendations for the Development of
skipping to change at page 6, line 34 skipping to change at page 8, line 12
related to configuration of IP-based networks. One output was related to configuration of IP-based networks. One output was
"Requirements for Configuration Management of IP-based Networks" "Requirements for Configuration Management of IP-based Networks"
[RFC3139]. [RFC3139].
In 2003, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a workshop on In 2003, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a workshop on
Network Management [RFC3535] that discussed the strengths and Network Management [RFC3535] that discussed the strengths and
weaknesses of some IETF network management protocols, and compared weaknesses of some IETF network management protocols, and compared
them to operational needs, especially configuration. them to operational needs, especially configuration.
One issue discussed was the user-unfriendliness of the binary format One issue discussed was the user-unfriendliness of the binary format
of SNMP and COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) [RFC3084], of SNMP [RFC3410] and COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)
and it was recommended that the IETF explore an XML-based Structure [RFC3084], and it was recommended that the IETF explore an XML-based
of Management Information, and an XML-based protocol for Structure of Management Information, and an XML-based protocol for
configuration. configuration.
Another conclusion was that the tools for event/alarm correlation and Another conclusion was that the tools for event/alarm correlation and
for root cause analysis and logging are not sufficient, and that for root cause analysis and logging are not sufficient, and that
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 security and programmatic support. standard for system logging security and 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 schema languages for be updated to accommodate multiple IETF schema languages for
describing the structure of management information, and multiple IETF describing the structure of management information, and multiple IETF
standard protocols for doing network management. standard protocols for performing management tasks. The IESG asked
that a document be written to discuss how protocol designers and
working groups should address management in this emerging multi-
protocol environment. This document, and some planned companion
documents, attempt to provide some guidelines for navigating the
rapidly-shifting operating and management environments.
1.5. Available Management Technologies 1.5. Available Management Technologies
The IETF has a number of standard management technologies available. The IETF has a number of standard management protocols available that
These include SNMP, SYSLOG, RADIUS, DIAMETER, NETCONF, IPFIX, and are suitable for different purposes. These include
others.
SNMP [RFC3410],
SYSLOG [RFC5424],
RADIUS [RFC2865],
DIAMETER [RFC3588],
NETCONF [RFC4741],
IPFIX [RFC5101].
A planned supplement to this document will discuss these protocol
standards, and discuss some standard information and data models for
specific functionality, and provide pointers to the documents that
define them.
1.6. Terminology 1.6. Terminology
This document deliberately does not use the (capitalized) keywords This document deliberately does not use the (capitalized) keywords
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
retransmissions). For example, they must not be used to try to retransmissions). For example, they must not be used to try to
impose a particular method on implementers where the method is not impose a particular method on implementers where the method is not
required for interoperability. This document is a set of guidelines required for interoperability. This document is a set of guidelines
based on current practices of protocol designers and operators. This based on current practices of protocol designers and operators. This
document does not describe requirements, so the key words from document does not describe requirements, so the key words from
RFC2119 have no place here. RFC2119 have no place here.
o CLI: Command Line Interface o CLI: Command Line Interface
o Data model: A mapping of the contents of an information model into o Data model: A mapping of the contents of an information model into
a form that is specific to a particular type of data store or a form that is specific to a particular type of data store or
repository. repository. [RFC3444]
o Information model: An abstraction and representation of the o Information model: An abstraction and representation of the
entities in a managed environment, their properties, attributes entities in a managed environment, their properties, attributes
and operations, and the way that they relate to each other. It is and operations, and the way that they relate to each other. It is
independent of any specific repository, software usage, protocol, independent of any specific repository, software usage, protocol,
or platform. or platform. [RFC3444]
o "new protocol" includes new protocols, protocol extensions, data o "new protocol" includes new protocols, protocol extensions, data
models, or other functionality being designed. models, or other functionality being designed.
o "protocol designer" represents individuals and working groups o "protocol designer" represents individuals and working groups
involved in the development of new protocols. involved in the development of new protocols or extensions.
2. Operational Considerations - How Will the New Protocol Fit Into the 2. Operational Considerations - How Will the New Protocol Fit Into the
Current Environment? Current Environment?
Designers of a new protocol should carefully consider the operational Designers of a new protocol should carefully consider the operational
aspects. To ensure that a protocol will be practical to deploy in aspects. To ensure that a protocol will be practical to deploy in
the real world, it is not enough to merely define it very precisely the real world, it is not enough to merely define it very precisely
in a well-written document. Operational aspects will have a serious in a well-written document. Operational aspects will have a serious
impact on the actual success of a protocol. Such aspects include bad impact on the actual success of a protocol. Such aspects include bad
interactions with existing solutions, a difficult upgrade path, interactions with existing solutions, a difficult upgrade path,
skipping to change at page 8, line 13 skipping to change at page 10, line 10
central database, or a complicated state diagram that operations central database, or a complicated state diagram that operations
staff will find difficult to understand. staff will find difficult to understand.
BGP flap damping [RFC2439] is an example. It was designed to block BGP flap damping [RFC2439] is an example. It was designed to block
high frequency route flaps, however the design did not consider the high frequency route flaps, however the design did not consider the
existence of BGP path exploration/slow convergence. In real existence of BGP path exploration/slow convergence. In real
operations, path exploration caused false flap damping, resulting in operations, path exploration caused false flap damping, resulting in
loss of reachability. As a result, many networks turned flap damping loss of reachability. As a result, many networks turned flap damping
off. off.
2.1. Operations Model 2.1. Operations
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 need not be reflected directly by text in their document, exercise need 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 how to apply the protocol in the
applicability of the protocol in the Internet environments where it Internet environments where it will be deployed.
will be deployed.
A key question is how the protocol can operate "out of the box". If A key question is how the protocol can operate "out of the box". If
implementers are free to select their own defaults, the protocol implementers are free to select their own defaults, the protocol
needs to operate well with any choice of values. If there are needs to operate well with any choice of values. If there are
sensible defaults, these need to be stated. sensible defaults, these need to be stated.
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. The application programming monitoring and root cause analysis. The application programming
interfaces and the human interfaces might benefit from being similar interfaces and the human interfaces might benefit from being similar
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 11, line 21
or perhaps why a range of values makes sense. In many cases, as or perhaps why a range of values makes sense. In many cases, as
technology changes, the values in an RFC might make less and less technology changes, the values in an RFC might make less and less
sense. It is very useful to understand whether defaults are based on sense. It is very useful to understand whether defaults are based on
best current practice and are expected to change as technologies best current practice and are expected to change as technologies
advance or whether they have a more universal value that should not advance or whether they have a more universal value that should not
be changed lightly. For example, the default interface speed might be changed lightly. For example, the default interface speed might
be expected to change over time due to increased speeds in the be expected to change over time due to increased speeds in the
network, and cryptographical algorithms might be expected to change network, and cryptographical algorithms might be expected to change
over time as older algorithms are "broken". over time as older algorithms 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 on The default value should stay on the conservative side rather than on
the "optimizing performance" side. (example: the initial RTT and the "optimizing performance" side. (example: the initial RTT and
RTTvar values of a TCP connection) 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
speed or some other relevant factors. This would help reduce the speed or some other relevant factors. This would help reduce the
chance of problems caused by technology advancement. chance of problems caused by technology advancement.
skipping to change at page 10, line 28 skipping to change at page 12, line 22
stated. stated.
For example, the design of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) For example, the design of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
[RFC2205] required each router to look at the RSVP PATH message, and [RFC2205] required each router to look at the RSVP PATH message, and
if the router understood RSVP, to add its own address to the message if the router understood RSVP, to add its own address to the message
to enable automatically tunneling through non-RSVP routers. But in to enable automatically tunneling through non-RSVP routers. But in
reality routers cannot look at an otherwise normal IP packet, and reality routers cannot look at an otherwise normal IP packet, and
potentially take it off the fast path! The initial designers potentially take it off the fast path! The initial designers
overlooked that a new "deep packet inspection" requirement was being overlooked that a new "deep packet inspection" requirement was being
put on the functional components of a router. The "router alert" put on the functional components of a router. The "router alert"
option was finally developed to solve this problem for RSVP and other option [RFC2113] [RFC2711] was finally developed to solve this
protocols that require the router to take some packets off the fast problem for RSVP and other protocols that require the router to take
forwarding path. Router alert has its own problems in impacting some packets off the fast forwarding path. Router alert has its own
router performance. problems in impacting router performance.
2.5. Impact on Network Operation 2.5. Impact on Network Operation
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 considered in the light of the impact on the scalability of the
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 12, line 47
A protocol could send active monitoring packets on the wire. If we A protocol could send active monitoring packets on the wire. If we
don't pay attention, we might get very good accuracy, but could send don't pay attention, we might get very good accuracy, but could send
too many active monitoring packets. too many active monitoring packets.
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 configuration, 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 DNS [RFC1034], the registries, or infrastructure applications like DNS [RFC1034], the registries, or
the size of routing tables. For example, Simple Mail Transfer the size of routing tables. For example, Simple Mail Transfer
Protocol (SMTP) [RFC5321] servers use a reverse DNS lookup to filter Protocol (SMTP) [RFC5321] servers use a reverse DNS lookup to filter
out incoming connection requests. When Berkeley installed a new spam out incoming connection requests. When Berkeley installed a new spam
filter, their mail server stopped functioning because of the DNS filter, their mail server stopped functioning because of the DNS
cache resolver overload. cache resolver overload.
skipping to change at page 11, line 40 skipping to change at page 13, line 35
to-end operation of the new protocol in the network can be tested to-end operation of the new protocol in the network can be tested
actively and passively, and how the correct data or forwarding plane actively and passively, and how the correct data or forwarding plane
function of each network element can be verified to be working function of each network element can be verified to be working
properly with the new protocol. Which metrics are of interest? properly with the new protocol. Which metrics are of interest?
Having simple protocol status and health indicators on network Having simple protocol status and health indicators on network
devices is a recommended means to check correct operation. devices is a recommended means to check correct operation.
3. Management Considerations - How Will The Protocol be Managed? 3. Management Considerations - How Will The Protocol be Managed?
The considerations of manageability should start from describing the The considerations of manageability should start from identifying the
operations model, which includes identifying the entities to be entities to be managed, and how the managed protocol is supposed to
managed, how the managed protocol is supposed to be installed, be installed, configured and monitored.
configured and monitored.
Considerations for management should include a discussion of what Considerations for management should include a discussion of what
needs to be managed, and how to achieve various management tasks. needs to be managed, and how to achieve various management tasks.
Where are the managers and what type of management interfaces and Where are the managers and what type of management interfaces and
protocols will they need? The "write a MIB module" approach to protocols will they need? The "write a MIB module" approach to
considering management often focuses on monitoring a protocol considering management often focuses on monitoring a protocol
endpoint on a single device. A MIB module document typically only endpoint on a single device. A MIB module document typically only
considers monitoring properties observable at one end, while the considers monitoring properties observable at one end, while the
document does not really cover managing the *protocol* (the document does not really cover managing the *protocol* (the
coordination of multiple ends), and does not even come near managing coordination of multiple ends), and does not even come near managing
skipping to change at page 13, line 24 skipping to change at page 15, line 17
decide, in an implementation-specific manner, how to react to a decide, in an implementation-specific manner, how to react to a
received event. received event.
In a client/server protocol, it may be more important to instrument In a client/server protocol, it may be more important to instrument
the server end of a protocol than the client end, since the the server end of a protocol than the client end, since the
performance of the server might impact more nodes than the performance of the server might impact more nodes than the
performance of a specific client. performance of a specific client.
3.1. Interoperability 3.1. Interoperability
Just as when deploying protocols that will inter-connect devices, our Just as when deploying protocols that will inter-connect devices,
primary goal in considering management should be interoperability, management interoperability should be considered, whether across
whether across devices from different vendors, across models from the devices from different vendors, across models from the same vendor,
same vendor, or across different releases of the same product. or across different releases of the same product. Management
Management interoperability refers to allowing information sharing interoperability refers to allowing information sharing and
and operations between multiple devices and multiple management operations between multiple devices and multiple management
applications, often from different vendors. Interoperability allows applications, often from different vendors. Interoperability allows
for the use of 3rd party applications and the outsourcing of for the use of 3rd party applications and the outsourcing of
management services. management services.
Some product designers and protocol designers assume that if a device Some product designers and protocol designers assume that if a device
can be managed individually using a command line interface or a web can be managed individually using a command line interface or a web
page interface, that such a solution is enough. But when equipment page interface, that such a solution is enough. But when equipment
from multiple vendors is combined into a large network, scalability from multiple vendors is combined into a large network, scalability
of management becomes a problem. It is important to have consistency of management may become a problem. It may be important to have
in the management interfaces so network-wide operational processes consistency in the management interfaces so network-wide operational
can be automated. For example, a single switch might be easily processes can be automated. For example, a single switch might be
managed using an interactive web interface when installed in a single easily managed using an interactive web interface when installed in a
office small business, but when, say, a fast food company installs single office small business, but when, say, a fast food company
similar switches from multiple vendors in hundreds or thousands of installs similar switches from multiple vendors in hundreds or
individual branches and wants to automate monitoring them from a thousands of individual branches and wants to automate monitoring
central location, monitoring vendor-and-model-specific web pages them from a central location, monitoring vendor-and-model-specific
would be difficult to automate. web pages would be difficult to automate.
The primary goal is the ability to roll out new useful functions and
services in a way in which they can be managed in a scalable manner,
where one understands the network impact (as part of the total cost
of operations) of that service.
Getting everybody to agree on a single syntax and an associated Getting everybody to agree on a single syntax and an associated
protocol to do all management has proven to be difficult. So protocol to do all management has proven to be difficult. So
management systems tend to speak whatever the boxes support, whether management systems tend to speak whatever the boxes support, whether
the IETF likes this or not. The IETF is moving from support for one the IETF likes this or not. The IETF is moving from support for one
schema language for modeling the structure of management information schema language for modeling the structure of management information
(Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) [RFC2578]) and (Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2) [RFC2578]) and
one simple network management protocol (Simple Network Management one simple network management protocol (Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3410]) towards support for additional schema Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3410]) towards support for additional schema
languages and additional management protocols suited to different languages and additional management protocols suited to different
skipping to change at page 14, line 37 skipping to change at page 16, line 35
and others and others
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 syntactic can make their processing conditional to accommodate syntactic
differences across vendors or models or releases of product. differences 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.
three types of error conditions, while the corresponding counter
provided by vendor B counts seven types of error conditions, these
counters cannot be compared effectively - they are not interoperable
counters.
Information models are helpful to try to focus interoperability on Information models are helpful to try to focus interoperability on
the semantic level - they establish standards for what information the semantic level - they establish standards for what information
should be gathered, and how gathered information might be used should be gathered, and how gathered information might be used
regardless of which management interface carries the data or which regardless of which management interface carries the data or which
vendor produces the product. The use of an information model might vendor produces the product. The use of an information model might
help improve the ability of operators to correlate messages in help improve the ability of operators to correlate messages in
different protocols where the data overlaps, such as a SYSLOG message different protocols where the data overlaps, such as a SYSLOG message
and an SNMP notification about the same event. An information model and an SNMP notification about the same event. An information model
might identify which error conditions should be counted separately, might identify which error conditions should be counted separately,
skipping to change at page 15, line 22 skipping to change at page 17, line 16
| for designers and operators | for designers and operators
+----------+---------+ +----------+---------+
| | | | | |
DM DM DM --> concrete/detailed model DM DM DM --> concrete/detailed model
for implementers for implementers
Information Models and Data Models Information Models and Data Models
Figure 1 Figure 1
Protocol designers may decide an information model or data model
would be appropriate for managing the new protocol or protocol
extensions.
On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models
[RFC3444] may be useful in determining what information to consider [RFC3444] can be helpful in determining what information to consider
regarding information models, as compared to data models. regarding information models, as compared to data models.
Information models should come from the protocol WGs and include Information models should come from the protocol WGs and include
lists of events, counters and configuration parameters that are lists of events, counters and configuration parameters that are
relevant. There are a number of information models contained in relevant. There are a number of information models contained in
protocol WG RFCs. Some examples: protocol WG RFCs. Some examples:
o [RFC3060] - Policy Core Information Model version 1 o [RFC3060] - Policy Core Information Model version 1
o [RFC3290] - An Informal Management Model for DiffServ Routers o [RFC3290] - An Informal Management Model for DiffServ Routers
skipping to change at page 18, line 7 skipping to change at page 20, line 7
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 or failure aspect of the new protocol fails or encounters an error or failure
condition, and SNMP is frequently used as a heartbeat monitor. condition, and SNMP is frequently used as a heartbeat monitor.
Should the event reporting provide guaranteed accurate delivery of Should the event reporting provide guaranteed accurate delivery of
the event information within a given (high) margin of confidence? the event information within a given (high) margin of confidence?
Can we poll the latest events in the box? Can we poll the latest events in the box?
3.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 3.3.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Liveness detection and monitoring applies both to the control plane
and the data plane. Mechanisms for detecting faults in the control
plane or for monitoring its liveness are usually built into the
control plane protocols or inherited from underlying data plane or
forwarding plane protocols. These mechanisms do not typically
require additional management capabilities. However, when a system
detects a control plane fault, there is often a requirement to
coordinate recovery action through management applications or at
least to record the fact in an event log.
Where the protocol is responsible for establishing data or user plane
connectivity, liveness detection and monitoring usually need to be
achieved through other mechanisms. In some cases, these mechanisms
already exist within other protocols responsible for maintaining
lower layer connectivity, but it will often be the case that new
procedures are required to detect failures in the data path and to
report rapidly, allowing remedial action to be taken.
Protocol designers should always build in basic testing features Protocol designers should always build in basic testing features
(e.g. ICMP echo, UDP/TCP echo service, NULL RPC calls) that can be (e.g. ICMP echo, UDP/TCP echo service, NULL RPC calls) that can be
used to test for liveness, with an option to enable and disable them. used to test for liveness, with an option to enable and disable them.
Mechanisms for monitoring the liveness of the protocol and for
detecting faults in protocol connectivity are usually built into
protocols. In some cases, mechanisms already exist within other
protocols responsible for maintaining lower layer connectivity (e.g.
ICMP echo), but often new procedures are required to detect failures
and to report rapidly, allowing remedial action to be taken.
These liveness monitoring mechanisms do not typically require
additional management capabilities. However, when a system detects a
fault, there is often a requirement to coordinate recovery action
through management applications or at least to record the fact in an
event log.
3.3.2. Fault Determination 3.3.2. Fault Determination
It can be helpful to describe how faults can be pinpointed using It can be helpful to describe how faults can be pinpointed using
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. Protocol designers should consider what
counters should count. If a single counter provided by vendor A
counts three types of error conditions, while the corresponding
counter provided by vendor B counts seven types of error conditions,
these counters cannot be compared effectively - they are not
interoperable counters.
How do you distinguish between faulty messages and good messages? How do you distinguish between faulty messages and good messages?
Would some threshold-based mechanisms, such as RMON events/alarms or Would some threshold-based mechanisms, such as RMON events/alarms or
the EVENT-MIB, be useable to help determine error conditions? Are the EVENT-MIB, be useable to help determine error conditions? Are
SNMP notifications for all events needed, or are there some SNMP notifications for all events needed, or are there some
"standard" notifications that could be used? or can relevant counters "standard" notifications that could be used? or can relevant counters
be polled as needed? be polled as needed?
3.3.3. Root Cause Analysis 3.3.3. Root Cause Analysis
skipping to change at page 19, line 33 skipping to change at page 21, line 33
[RFC3139] discusses requirements for configuration management, [RFC3139] discusses requirements for configuration management,
including discussion of different levels of management, high-level- including discussion of different levels of management, high-level-
policies, network-wide configuration data, and device-local policies, network-wide configuration data, and device-local
configuration. Network configuration is not just multi-device push configuration. Network configuration is not just multi-device push
or pull. It is knowing that the configurations being pushed are or pull. It is knowing that the configurations being pushed are
semantically compatible. Is the circuit between them configured semantically compatible. Is the circuit between them configured
compatibly on both ends? is the is-is metric the same? ... now do compatibly on both ends? is the is-is metric the same? ... now do
that for 1,000 devices. that for 1,000 devices.
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. "Terminology for Policy-Based Management" [RFC3198] was configuration management. "Terminology for Policy-Based Management"
written to standardize the terminology across these efforts. [RFC3198] was written to standardize the terminology across these
efforts.
Implementations should not arbitrarily modify configuration data. In Implementations should not arbitrarily modify configuration data. In
some cases (such as Access Control Lists) the order of data items is some cases (such as Access Control Lists) the order of data items is
significant and comprises part of the configured data. If a protocol significant and comprises part of the configured data. 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.
There are two parts to this: 1. An NMS system could optimize access There are two parts to this: 1. An NMS system could optimize access
control lists (ACLs) for performance reasons 2. Unless the device/ control lists (ACLs) for performance reasons 2. Unless the device/
skipping to change at page 20, line 36 skipping to change at page 22, line 37
A mechanism to dump and restore configurations is a primitive A mechanism to dump and restore configurations is a primitive
operation needed by operators. Standards for pulling and pushing operation needed by operators. Standards for pulling and pushing
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 A protocol designer should consider the configurable items that exist
operation of the protocol. These timers should have default values for the control of function via the protocol elements described in
suggested in the protocol specification and may not need to be the protocol specification. For example, sometimes the protocol
otherwise configurable. requires that timers can be configured by the operator to ensure
specific policy-based behavior by the implementation. These timers
should have default values suggested in the protocol specification
and may not need to be otherwise configurable.
3.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation 3.4.1. Verifying Correct Operation
An important function that should be provided is guidance on how to An important function that should be provided is guidance on how to
verify the correct operation of a protocol. A protocol designer verify the correct operation of a protocol. A protocol designer
could suggest techniques for testing the impact of the protocol on could suggest techniques for testing the impact of the protocol on
the network before it is deployed, and techniques for testing the the network before it is deployed, and techniques for testing the
effect that the protocol has had on the network after being deployed. effect that the protocol has had on the network after being deployed.
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 or service, and how to verify the correct
forwarding plane function of each network element. This may be functioning of the protocol, whether it is the data or forwarding
achieved through status and statistical information from network plane function of each network element, or the function of service.
devices. This may be achieved through status and statistical information
gathered from devices.
3.4.2. Control of Function and Policy
A protocol designer should consider the configurable items that exist
for the control of function via the protocol elements described in
the protocol specification. For example, sometimes the protocol
requires that timers can be configured by the operator to ensure
specific policy-based behavior by the implementation.
3.5. Accounting Management 3.5. 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.
"Introduction to Accounting Management" [RFC2975] discusses a number "Introduction to Accounting Management" [RFC2975] discusses a number
of factors relevant to monitoring usage of protocols for purposes of of factors relevant to monitoring usage of protocols for purposes of
capacity and trend analysis, cost allocation, auditing, and billing. capacity and trend analysis, cost allocation, auditing, and billing.
skipping to change at page 21, line 38 skipping to change at page 23, line 35
3.6. Performance Management 3.6. Performance Management
From a manageability point of view it is important to determine how From a manageability point of view it is important to determine how
well a network deploying the protocol or technology defined in the well a network deploying the protocol or technology defined in the
document is doing. In order to do this the network operators need to document is doing. In order to do this the network operators need to
consider information that would be useful to determine the consider information that would be useful to determine the
performance characteristics of a deployed system using the target performance characteristics of a deployed system using the target
protocol. protocol.
The Benchmarking Methodology WG (BMWG) has defined recommendations The IETF, via the Benchmarking Methodology WG (BMWG), has defined
for the measurement of the performance characteristics of various recommendations for the measurement of the performance
internetworking technologies in a laboratory environment, including characteristics of various internetworking technologies in a
the systems or services that are built from these technologies. Each laboratory environment, including the systems or services that are
recommendation describes the class of equipment, system, or service built from these technologies. Each benchmarking recommendation
being addressed; discuss the performance characteristics that are describes the class of equipment, system, or service being addressed;
pertinent to that class; clearly identify a set of metrics that aid discuss the performance characteristics that are pertinent to that
in the description of those characteristics; specify the class; clearly identify a set of metrics that aid in the description
methodologies required to collect said metrics; and lastly, present of those characteristics; specify the methodologies required to
the requirements for the common, unambiguous reporting of collect said metrics; and lastly, present the requirements for the
benchmarking results. common, unambiguous reporting of benchmarking results. Search for
"benchmark" in the RFC search tool.
Performance metrics may be useful in multiple environments, and for Performance metrics may be useful in multiple environments, and for
different protocols. The IP Performance Monitoring (IPPM) WG or different protocols. The IETF, via the IP Performance Monitoring
Benchmarking (BMWG) WG may have already defined metrics that would be (IPPM) WG, has developed a set of standard metrics that can be
useful for the new protocol. In some cases, new metrics need to be applied to the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet data
defined. It would be useful if the protocol documentation identified delivery services. These metrics are designed such that they can be
the need for such new metrics. For performance monitoring, it is performed by network operators, end users, or independent testing
often important to report the time spent in a state rather than the groups. The existing metrics might be applicable to the new
current state. Snapshots are of less value for performance protocol. Search for "metric" in the RFC search tool. In some
monitoring. cases, new metrics need to be defined. It would be useful if the
protocol documentation identified the need for such new metrics. For
performance monitoring, it is often important to report the time
spent in a state rather than the current state. Snapshots are of
less value for performance monitoring.
There are several parts to performance management to be considered: There are several parts to performance management to be considered:
protocol monitoring, device monitoring (the impact of the new protocol monitoring, device monitoring (the impact of the new
protocol/service activation on the device), network monitoring, and protocol/service activation on the device), network monitoring, and
service monitoring (the impact of service activation on the network). service monitoring (the impact of service activation on the network).
3.6.1. Monitoring the Protocol 3.6.1. Monitoring the Protocol
Certain properties of protocols are useful to monitor. The number of Certain properties of protocols are useful to monitor. The number of
protocol packets received, the number of packets sent, and the number protocol packets received, the number of packets sent, and the number
skipping to change at page 27, line 35 skipping to change at page 29, line 35
Manageability Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced Manageability Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced
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.
Thanks to reviewers who helped fashion this document, including Thanks to reviewers who helped fashion this document, including
Adrian Farrell, David Kessens, Dan Romascanu, Ron Bonica, Bert Harald Alvestrand, Ron Bonica, Brian Carpenter, Benoit Claise, Adrian
Wijnen, Lixia Zhang, Ralf Wolter, Benoit Claise, Brian Carpenter, Farrell, David Kessens, Dan Romascanu, Pekka Savola, Juergen
Harald Alvestrand, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and Pekka Savola. Schoenwaelder, Bert Wijnen, Ralf Wolter, and Lixia Zhang.
8. Informative References 8. Informative References
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names -
concepts and facilities", STD 13, concepts and facilities", STD 13,
RFC 1034, November 1987. RFC 1034, November 1987.
[RFC1052] Cerf, V., "IAB recommendations for [RFC1052] Cerf, V., "IAB recommendations for
the development of Internet network the development of Internet network
management standards", RFC 1052, management standards", RFC 1052,
April 1988. April 1988.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural [RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural
Principles of the Internet", Principles of the Internet",
RFC 1958, June 1996. RFC 1958, June 1996.
[RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option",
RFC 2113, February 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in
RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",
BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., [RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S.,
Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) --
Version 1 Functional Specification", Version 1 Functional Specification",
RFC 2205, September 1997. RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R.
Govindan, "BGP Route Flap Damping", Govindan, "BGP Route Flap Damping",
RFC 2439, November 1998. RFC 2439, November 1998.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D.,
Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed.,
"Structure of Management Information "Structure of Management Information
Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
April 1999. April 1999.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6
Router Alert Option", RFC 2711,
October 1999.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A.,
and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service
(RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC2975] Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D. [RFC2975] Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D.
Harrington, "Introduction to Harrington, "Introduction to
Accounting Management", RFC 2975, Accounting Management", RFC 2975,
October 2000. October 2000.
[RFC3060] Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, [RFC3060] Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner,
J., and A. Westerinen, "Policy Core J., and A. Westerinen, "Policy Core
Information Model -- Version 1 Information Model -- Version 1
Specification", RFC 3060, Specification", RFC 3060,
February 2001. February 2001.
skipping to change at page 29, line 35 skipping to change at page 31, line 47
[RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the [RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the
2002 IAB Network Management 2002 IAB Network Management
Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003. Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.
[RFC3585] Jason, J., Rafalow, L., and E. [RFC3585] Jason, J., Rafalow, L., and E.
Vyncke, "IPsec Configuration Policy Vyncke, "IPsec Configuration Policy
Information Model", RFC 3585, Information Model", RFC 3585,
August 2003. August 2003.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman,
E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter
Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
September 2003.
[RFC3644] Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J., [RFC3644] Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J.,
Cohen, R., and B. Moore, "Policy Cohen, R., and B. Moore, "Policy
Quality of Service (QoS) Information Quality of Service (QoS) Information
Model", RFC 3644, November 2003. Model", RFC 3644, November 2003.
[RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., [RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J.,
Westerinen, A., and W. Weiss, Westerinen, A., and W. Weiss,
"Information Model for Describing "Information Model for Describing
Network Device QoS Datapath Network Device QoS Datapath
Mechanisms", RFC 3670, January 2004. Mechanisms", RFC 3670, January 2004.
skipping to change at page 30, line 33 skipping to change at page 32, line 51
Appendix A. Operations and Management Review Checklist Appendix A. Operations and Management Review Checklist
This appendix provides a quick checklist of issues that protocol This appendix provides a quick checklist of issues that protocol
designers should expect operations and management expert reviewers to designers should expect operations and management expert reviewers to
look for when reviewing a document being proposed for consideration look for when reviewing a document being proposed for consideration
as a protocol standard. as a protocol standard.
A.1. Operational Considerations A.1. Operational Considerations
Has the operations model been discussed? see Section 2.1 Has deployment been discussed? see Section 2.1
Does the document include a description of how this protocol or
Does the document include a description of the operational model - technology is going to be deployed and managed?
how is this protocol or technology going to be deployed and
managed?
Is the proposed specification deployable? If not, how could it be Is the proposed specification deployable? If not, how could it be
improved? improved?
Does the solution scale well from the operational and management Does the solution scale well from the operational and management
perspective? Does the proposed approach have any scaling issues perspective? Does the proposed approach have any scaling issues
that could affect usability for large scale operation? that could affect usability for large scale operation?
Are there any coexistence issues? Are there any coexistence issues?
 End of changes. 44 change blocks. 
174 lines changed or deleted 240 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/