Network Working Group Adrian Farrel IETF Internet Draft Olddog Consulting Proposed Status: Informational Expires: April 2004 Loa Andersson Acreo AB Avri Doria ETRI October 2004 draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt Requirements for Manageability Sections in Routing Area Drafts Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract It has often been the case that manageability considerations have been retrofitted to protocols. This is sub-optimal. Similarly, new protocols or protocol extensions are frequently designed without due consideration of manageability requirements. This document specifies the requirement for all new Routing Area Internet-Drafts to include an "Manageability Considerations" section, and gives guidance on what that section should contain. Farrel, Andersson and Doria Page 1 draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt October 2004 Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 1. Introduction When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed within the Routing Area, it is often the case that not enough consideration is given to the manageability of the protocols or to the way in which they will be operated in the network. The result is that manageablity considerations are only understood once the protocols have been implemented and sometimes not until after they have been deployed. The resultant attempts to retrofit manageablity mechanisms are not always easy or architecturally pleasant. Further, it is possible that certain protocol designs make manageablity particularly hard to achieve. Recognising that manageablity is fundamental to the utility and success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply defining a MIB module does not necessarily provide adequate manageablity, this document defines requirements for the inclusion of Manageablity Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the Routing Area. Meeting these requirements will ensure that proper consideration is given to the support of manageability at all stages of the protocol development process from Requirements and Architecture, through Specification and Applicability. The remainder of this document describes what subsections are needed within a Manageablity Considerations section, and gives advice and guidance about what information should be contained in those subsections. 2. Presence and Placement of Manageablity Considerations Sections 2.1. Null Manageablity Considerations Sections In the event that there are no manageablity requirements for the protocol specified in an Internet-Draft, the draft MUST still contain a Manageablity Considerations section. The presences of this section indicates to the reader and to the reviewer that due consideration has been given to manageablity, and that there are no (or no new) requirements. In this case, the section MUST contain a simple statement such as "There are no new manageablity requirements introduced by this document," and MUST briefly explain why that is the case with a summary of manageablity mechanisms that already exist. Farrel, Andersson and Doria Page 2 draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt October 2004 2.2. Mandatory Subsections If the Manageablity Considerations section is not null, it MUST contain at least the following subsections. Guidance on the content of these subsections can be found in section 3 of this document. - Information and data models, e.g. MIB module - Management Information Base Modules and Objects - Liveness Detection and Monitoring - Verifying Correct Operation - Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components - Impact on Network Operation In the event that one or more of these subsections is not relevant, it MUST still be present, and SHOULD contain a simple statement explaining why the subsection is not relevant. 2.3. Optional Subsections The list of subsections above is not intended to be prescriptively limiting. Other subsections can and should be added according to the requirements of each individual Internet-Draft. 2.4. Placement of Manageability Considerations Sections The Manageability Considerations Section SHOULD be placed immediately before the IANA Consiederations section at the end of the body of the draft. 3. Guidance on the Content of Subsections THIS SECTION IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT. SUBSTANTIAL TEXT REMAINS TO BE WRITTEN. THE SUBSECTIONS COULD USEFULLY GIVE EXAMPLES 3.x Information and Data Models Reference and brief description of information and data models, including, but not necesarily limited to MIB modules or other modules developed specificially for the functions specified in the document. 3.y Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components Here the requirements that the new protocol puts on other protocols and functional components, as well as requirements from other protocols that has been considered in desinging the new protocol 3.z Other considerations Anything that is not covered above, but is needed to understand the manageability situation. Farrel, Andersson and Doria Page 3 draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt October 2004 4. Manageability Considerations This document defines the Manageability Considerations sections for inclusion in all Routing Area Internet-Drafts. As such, the whole document is relevant to manageability. 5. IANA Considerations This document does not introduce any new codepoints or name spaces for registration with IANA. Routing Area Internet-Drafts SHOULD NOT introduce new codepoints or name spaces for IANA registration within the Manageability Considerations section. 6. Security Considerations This document is informational and describes the format and content of future Internet-Drafts. As such it introduces no new security concerns. However, there is a clear overlap between security, operations and management. The manageability aspects of security SHOULD be covered within the mandatory Security Considerations of each Routing Area Internet-Draft. New security consideration introduced by the Manageability Considerations section should be covered in that section. 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to extend their warmest thanks to Alex Zinin for inviting them to write this document. 8. Intellectual Property Considerations The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. Farrel, Andersson and Doria Page 4 draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt October 2004 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 9. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3667] Bradner, S., "IETF Rights in Contributions", BCP 78, RFC 3667, February 2004. [RFC3668] Bradner, S., Ed., "Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology", BCP 79, RFC 3668, February 2004. 10. Informational References [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP: 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. [RFC3552] Rescorla E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP: 72, RFC 3552, July 2003. 11. Authors' Addresses Adrian Farrel Old Dog Consulting EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk Loa Andersson Acreo AB Email: Loa.Andersson@acreo.se Avri Doria ETRI Email: avri@acm.org 12. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, Farrel, Andersson and Doria Page 5 draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt October 2004 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Farrel, Andersson and Doria Page 6