But the requirements still need to be independent of the solution if they are to be requirements. If the whole goal of this exercise is simply to document a-prioi solutions, then isn't that what informational RFCs are for.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:07 AM
> To: Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH]
> Cc: Shahram Davari; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
>
>
>
>
> >Your statement that requirements support the
> tools/mechanisms that work
> >today is the nib of my concern. Basically the requirments step is
> >redundant at that point. We are now in a tight embrace where the
> >requirements justify the solution and the solution dictates the
> >requirements. Suggesting the requirements is a WG work item
> would appear
> >to be an oxymoron.
>
> As I mentioned, some of the tools have already been worked
> out, so yes, the cart is before the horse in some cases. However,
> I don't think that this is necessarily a problem.
>
> --Tom
>
>
>
> >Dave
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas D. Nadeau
> > [<mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com>mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:47 PM
> > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >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>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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>
>