[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
>Tom & co...
>
>I have to admit I am not finding some of these arguments to be
>consistent......
>
>If traceroute is an excellent example of a protocol that works, why not
>simply re-use it. Genericize Ron's proposal for MPLS extensions to ICMP
>and you're done. No more justification or requirements required.
>
>If the intent is to fix shortcomings with traceroute by inventing a new
>protocol, then all bets should be off, because you are saying the working
>example of a good solution is broken or lacking in some way. And the
>requirements document should cover in detail the problems to be solved (or
>re-solved as the case may be e.g. broadcast filtering etc.). In this
>regard I would consider the requirements document to be seriously lacking.
>
>Now process wise, if the intent is to have the cart before the horse (or
>it is that way accidentally or for some historical reasons), why are not
>the requirements and the solution proposed as WG documents
>simultaneously?...they are joined at the hip anyway. If the actual binding
>is not so simple, then the specific dependencies between the two should be
>eliminated before this is a genuine "work item".
I think that this thread has made it clear that Ron's requirements
document should be
a WG document in either case, since there is a clear need to capture these
requirements
in an IETF document, regardless of whether you agree with the current
working of the
requirements. If you do not, then we should (and have) discuss changing
them. As a WG document
we can work towards constructively specifying the requirements so that we
can make solutions
work for the working group. The GTTP document proposes one solution to the
requirements in
the document. If you think you have a better solution, feel free to post a
draft with the details. 8)
--Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.