RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Thanks... busy with other things now. Will check early next week.
Pls ping me if I do not answer by say Wed next week.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bonica [mailto:Ronald.P.Bonica@mci.com]
> Sent: maandag 28 april 2003 18:58
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> I have spun a new version of draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq. It is 
> available at
> http://www.bonica.org/docs/draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-02.txt. 
> Please take a
> look.
> 
> If you think that this version addresses the IESG concerns, I 
> will post send
> it to the draft editor.
> 
>                                                     Ron
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Ron Bonica
> > Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 5:51 PM
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; bwijnen@lucent.com
> > Subject: RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt
> >
> >
> > Bert,
> >
> > Sorry to have taken so long to respond. I have been away on 
> vacation.
> >
> > Comments inline.....
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:30 AM
> > > To: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> > > Subject: FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > Please consider these comments and let me know if they
> > > wrrant some additional text in the ID.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bert
> > >
> > > >*****  o Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels (None)
> > > >            <draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt>
> > > >         Token: Wijnen, Bert
> > > >         Note: New revision Addresses comments.
> > > >         Now on IESG agenda for April 17th
> > > >         Responsible: Bert
> > >
> > > 1. this document looks like it might be the union of all the
> > >    "i want it to do <foo>" requests. an important part of
> > >    requirements documents is knowing what to not require.
> > >    do they have any?
> >
> > This document specifies requirements for a new protocol. It 
> specifies
> > requirements, primarily, by detailing the required capabilities of
> > applications that will use this protocol. The application 
> may implement
> > some subset of those capabilities. It may also implement a 
> superset of
> > the required capabilities. However, protocol designers are 
> not required
> > to consider the additional capabilities when designing the protocol.
> >
> > I can add some text to this effect.
> >
> > > 2. i am concerned about the security stuff that they've buried in
> > >    their requirements. nothing definite. it seems unwieldy. but
> > >    then, so many security things do...
> >
> > Can you be more specific? Is there any particular requirement that
> > you feel cannot be implemented?
> >
> > > 3. section 4.1 and 4.2 seem to be worded with a particular
> > >    implementation in mind. requirements documents ought not
> > >    specify solutions (eg, 4.2 talks about udp, why can't i use
> > >    icmp?)
> >
> > Section 4 provides a few protocol requirements, stated as such. In
> > particular, Section 4.1 states that the new protocol will consist of
> > probes and responses, and that each probe/response pair will reveal
> > information regarding a network hop. (In this respect, the 
> new protocol
> > will resemble TRACEROUTE).
> >
> > Had I remembered to include an application requirement to 
> support partial
> > traces through broken paths, this requirement would have 
> made much more
> > sense!
> > I will fix this.
> >
> > Section 4.2 requires that the protocol be implemented over 
> UDP. I included
> > this
> > section primarily to rule out implmentations that were _not_
> > acceptable. For
> > example,
> > ICMP should not be used, because carrying MPLS information 
> over ICMP would
> > constitute
> > a layer violation. TCP should not be used, because this would
> > conflict with
> > the protocol's
> > requirement for statelessness. Tunnel specific mechanisms 
> should not be
> > used, because
> > this would conflict with the requirement for generality.
> >
> > This leaves UDP and IP as the two most resonable candidates.
> >
> > I can add some words indicating how we arrived at this decision.
> >
> > > 4. justification of requirements might be nice.
> > >
> >
> > I can add a sentence or two after each requirement.
> >
> >
> >
>