RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

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

Eric,

I think it all depends on the meaning of requirement. Here
is the Webster dictionary meaning of requirements:

"something essential to the existence or occurrence of something else"

Based on this definition could you please explain why it is essential 
to have a solution that looks a certain way?

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:06 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'Ron Bonica'; erosen@cisco.com; David Allan; 'Thomas D. Nadeau';
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> Shahram,
> 
>     On the contrary, it is quite reasonable to propose scoping
> requirements such as "tab B it should fit into slot A" in any
> proposal for requirements that are intended ever to be filled.
> Resemblance to existing tools is a very good example of an
> appropriate scoping requirement proposal.  What I saw Ron
> commenting on was a similar scoping proposal which might
> not be as likely of success in this forum.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> >Ron,
> >
> >>We should not be surprised that 
> >>the enhanced
> >>route tracing application resembles the current "traceroute" 
> >>in that a) it
> >>is based upon probes and responses, b) UDP carries its PDUs, 
> >>and c) it is
> >>stateless.
> >>
> >
> >I am not surprised at all. What you are suggesting is 
> >your desire to resemble the IP traceroute. But this is only
> >a desire and there is no technical reason why it should or it
> >should not resemble the IP traceroute. 
> >
> >A requirements document should leave the door open for other
> >innovative ideas, unless you can prove that the traceroute-like 
> >mechanism is the BEST.
> >
> >-Shahram  
> >
> 
> 
>