RE: I-D ACTION:draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-00.txt

["David B Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>]

Hi,

Just a point.
I disagree that the S in FCAPS manageability is already addressed by
Security Considerations.
Considering security for a technology and for the security of the
management of the technology are different topics.
The Security Considerations for a routing protocol might discuss
potential man-in-the-middle and DoS attacks for the routing protocol.
The Management Security  (fcapS) Considerations might recommend
protecting specific counters or config objects identified for
management.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
co-chair SNMPv3 WG, concluded

> -----Original Message-----
> > - You use the term manageability a lot. This is a generic term; it

> > means different things to different persons.
> > A breakdown per FCAPS under the "Manageability 
> Considerations" section 
> > would be nice. Or simply per FCAP, as the "security
considerations"
> > section is already taken care of.
> > For example.
> >
> >     Fault: the following notifications should be provided...
> >     Configuration: out of the scope of this protocol
> >     Accounting: a way of providing the following counters should
be
> >     provided...
> >     Performance: ...
> 
> Good points.
> We certainly need to come to Ops for help converting our 
> vague word into some concrete thoughts