Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>]

Dave,

again and allowing for agreeing to dis-agree :)

why is it that "seeing the requirements, concise, sustainable
and justifiable" is something you need to do before the doc
becomes a wg doc, not as an outcome of a wg discussion. it seems
like you are putting constraints on becoming a wg doc, almost
as if it were a wg last call

/Loa



David Allan wrote:

> Eric:
> 
> I guess you didn't read all the emails. I raised a number of concerns 
> and somewhere in all this noise had a useful and productive dialog going 
> with Ron which suggested (to me at least) most were on their way to 
> resolution in the next version of the draft. Which then IMHO would be a 
> reasonable starting point for a WG document.
> 
> As this is a requirements document, I'm a little confused as to how it 
> consistutes a proposal against which solutions that can do more should 
> be evaluated. There seems to be a blurring of requirements and the 
> candidate solution set in this discussion which should be irrelevant in 
> discussing a requirements document.
> 
> I'm simply interested in seeing the requirements, concise, sustainable 
> and justifiable.
> 
> cheers
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com]
>  > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:59 AM
>  > To: Shahram Davari
>  > Cc: 'Randy Bush'; Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>  > Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Shahram> It  has serious  security, complexity,  backward 
>  > compatibility and
>  > Shahram> layer violation issues.
>  >
>  > Tom> Can you elaborate on what you think these are?
>  >
>  > Shahram> Please refer to previous emails by me and David
>  > Allan. Most of them
>  > Shahram> are listed there. 
>  >
>  > I'm sorry, but  as far as I  can tell, those previous mails 
>  > simply say that
>  > (a)  the  proposed  solution doesn't  do  some  things  that
>  > you  think  are
>  > valuable,  and (b)  the proposed  solution doesn't  fit well 
>  > into  some ITU
>  > architecture.
>  >
>  > The  second  of  these  points  is  completely  irrelevant.  
>  > The  first  is
>  > irrelevant too, unless there is a reasonable alternative
>  > proposed which does
>  > more,  or if the  current proposal  doe so  little that  SPs
>  > don't  think it
>  > worthwhile.   The MPLS OAM  stuff you've  been pushing  is
>  > not  a reasonable
>  > alternative of  this sort  because (a)  it is MPLS-specific, 
>  > and (b)  it is
>  > already crystal  clear that it will not  be accepted in the 
>  > IETF.  And it's
>  > pretty clear  that a number of SPs  do think that what  the
>  > current proposal
>  > does is worthwhile.
>  >
>  > If  you can actually  cite specific  security issues  with
>  > the  proposal, it
>  > would be valuable to know about them.
>  >
>  > Suggestions for reducing complexity would  also be valuable,
>  > if you have any
>  > specific suggestions in that area.
>  >
>  > I don't understand what the backwards compatibility issue is,
>  > as there is no
>  > previous version to be compatible with.
>  >
>  > If you think there  are layer violation issues, then what you
>  >  need to do is
>  > exhibit the particular set of  specific problems that will
>  > arise in practice
>  > as a result of those violations.   If you cannot do this
>  > without referencing
>  > some arcane ITU  architecture document, then the natural 
>  > conclusion is that
>  > the  problem  is with  that  architecture's  layering  model,
>  > not  with  the
>  > proposal.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office          +46 8 5270 2000
Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
WWW             www.utfors.se