RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-03.txt

["zafar ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

Hi Jerry, 

Please see in-line.

Thanks
 
Regards... Zafar

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
>[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ash, Gerald R 
>(Jerry), ALABS
>Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 10:11 PM
>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
>Subject: RE: FW: I-D 
>ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-03.txt
>
>
>I have a couple of comments:
>
>1. I'm bothered by the statement in Section 3:
>"The maximum number of hierarchical RA levels to be supported 
>is NOT specified (outside the scope)." Why is it outside the 
>scope, I think there should be some explanation.  Does the 
>number of levels not matter?  Is one level (i.e., flat 
>network, no hierarchy at all) OK?  I would much prefer to have 
>the maximum number of required hierarchical levels stated in the draft.
>

I would disagree here. The number varies depending on networking scenario.
Furthermore, the problem is that as soon as we start picking a number here,
we tend to imply the solution.  Let's keep it as an attribute of the
networking scenario.

>2. There is quite a bit of discussion about hierarchy 
>evolution, e.g., in Section 3:
>"- The requirements support architectural evolution, e.g. a 
>change in the number of RA levels, as well as aggregation and 
>segmentation of RAs."
>
>This begins to suggest automatic 'insertion/deletion' of 
>hierarchical levels, which I believe is too complex.
>

I agree completely. I also think complexity greatly over-weight the benefit.

<snip>