RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Eric,


> I  don't agree  that  "backward compatibility"  is  a 
> requirement.   There's
> nothing inherently wrong  with a tool that requires  support 
> in the backbone
> for it to achieve its full effect.


By backward compatibility I mean:

"No wrong action (or mis-interpretation) would take place if a node does not support the trace-route."

Therefore requiring support in the entire backbone is fine, and has nothing to do with backward compatibility, as long as the application is designed properly.

 
> 
> The problem with "simplicity" as a  requirement is that it is 
> not objective.
> I've never seen  a dispute in which the proponents  of a 
> particular proposal
> didn't  claim that  their proposal  is simple  and all  other 
>  proposals are
> nightmarishly complicated.


I agree with you that simplicity is subjective. But my point was more of the following nature:

"A simpler protocol is preferred against a complex protocol". Off course if there is only one proposal, then this requirement won't be applied.

 
-Shahram