Re: 54th IETF Meeting - Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Atsushi,

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Atsushi Iwata wrote:

> Kireeti and Ron,
>
> I requested the slot for presentation of our draft.
>
> Could you give me a 5 minute slot for this presentation?

I read the draft, and don't see much new in it.  So, instead of
presenting it again, I would suggest that we start/continue a
discussion on the mailing list.

So, here goes.  Folks that think that this work is interesting
(especially non-authors) please respond.

First off, I think this is useful work (I didn't need to be hit
over the head with "Crankback has been identified by the ITU-T as
requirement" -- although that is good to know).

My question is, do we need a 32 page draft with quite so many
extensions to get there?

As the draft itself says, "full crankback information should
indicate the node, link and other resources which have been
attempted but have failed".  The current notify message has some,
but not all, of this information.  It seems to me that starting
with new error codes, and an indication of where the error was
would be sufficient (for now).

Can we apply Occam's Razor, please?  (It's generally a good idea.)
If the extensions *are* needed, can we have justifications?

Thanks,
Kireeti.