RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

>Thanks for your positive response. With regards to the protocol requirements,
>which ones do you think MUST be there and why?

         I think that the protocol requirements for those solutions that 
currently
exist should be in there.  I understand your point about
reverse engineering the tools, but unfortunately the requirement writing effort
started after we had some solutions working. Therefore protocol requirements
do matter because they support the tools/mechanisms that work today. No
need to obviate those things at this point.

>In my view protocol requirements should not unnecessarily restrict the 
>solution,
>unless they violate application requirements.

         I think that protocol requirements should be in line with the 
application
requirements that have come from operational folks working at SPs.  However,
application requirements should fit within existing protocols as much as
possible (to promote reuse of existing software/tools).  We should not
be forced to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of doing so.

         --Tom



>-Shahram
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 4:25 PM
> > To: Shahram Davari
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> >
> >
> >
> > >I think instead of debating whether Y.1711 is better than
> > LSP-ping/GTTP or
> > >vice versa, it would be more
> > >constructive to identify and document the applicability of
> > each proposal
> > >for various tunneling applications.
> >
> >          This sounds like a move in the right direction.
> >
> > >For this particular draft my suggestion at this stage is
> > that the Bonica's
> > >requirement draft be revised to:
> > >
> > >1) Add text (or at least a place holder) for additional
> > security issues
> > >raised on the list.
> > >2) Add backward compatibility, simplicity and scalability as
> > requirements.
> >
> >          I can go along with those.
> >
> > >3) Remove the protocol requirements section, since any
> > requirement here
> > >will be viewed as a reverse engineering of some solution.
> >
> >          Although this might sound reasonable to some, I
> > think that some
> > may object to this
> > since the protocol requirements are viewed by some as
> > fundamental to the
> > requirements
> > of any particular solution.  In the flurry of emails on the
> > topic, I have
> > not been able to
> > keep track of what the consensus on this might be (either
> > way). Perhaps Ron
> > has been keeping
> > track?
> >
> > >Then any offered solution should have text to show to what
> > extent they
> > >fulfill the
> > >requirements, and what is their applicability and restrictions.
> >
> >          Sounds reasonable.
> >
> >          --Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
> >



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.