RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Tom...I suspect Enrique is saying this because that is the only place he is
aware that they are written down and, since this is from the ITU, by
definition must have operator agreement.  Can you please provide us with a
reference to the requirements documents that you are working to?

thanks & regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent: 05 March 2002 17:01
> To: Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO
> Cc: David Allan; Shahram Davari; ccamp
> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02 
> 
> 
> 
>          Why are we still discussing Y.1710? I thought that this
> was the IETF. The following seem to comply with the operational
> OAM requirements I am hearing from operators.
> 
>           LSP "ping",
>           LSP Traceroute
>           MIBs
> 
>          Others may be required.
> 
>          --Tom
> 
> 
> >Could you provide us with a matrix (comply/does not comply) 
> of the tools 
> >you are
> >talking about vs. the requirements given in Y.1710?
> >
> >Enrique
> >_______________
> >ecuevas@att.com
> >Tel. (732)-420-3252
> >
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > >Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:07 AM
> > >To: David Allan
> > >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.
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. 
> 
>