RE: Draft minutes from Tove: draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-04.txt

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Hi Adrian,

Continuing on the thread of my previous email, of discussing
some of the points raised below one-by-one ...

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:19 AM
> To: v.sharma@ieee.org; Ugo Monaco
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Alessio D'Achille; Daniele Alì; Marco Listanti
> Subject: Re: Draft minutes from Tove:
> draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-04.txt
>
>
> Vishal,
>
> > > > Finally the phrase "need further feedback" looks not clear,
> who needs
> > > > feedback? -the list or the authors ?-
> >
> > > Despite the fact that both drafts have been around for some while, the
> > > level of discussion on the ccamp list has been quite low.
> >
> > I think a few clarifications are rather crucial here:
> >
> > -- The diverse routing draft has, in fact, received significant
> discussion
> > and debate (from all of the people involved in the inter-area work --
> > vendors and providers), right during and after Seoul, from March-May 04
> > -- please see the CCAMP WG archives for about 60-70-odd emails on it.
> > (I'm not sure how one could classify this as "low".)
>
> You're right, there was some thorough debate on the detailed
> function as described in an
> earlier version of the draft, and you have done a lot to address
> those issues.
>
> What I am missing (but maybe the community doesn't care?) is a
> higher-level debate about
> the methodology to solve what might best be described as a hard
> problem. In other words,
> while it is fine to get into the details of how ARO works and to
> polish that solution, I
> have not seen the debate as to whether we want to adopt ARO.
>
> In order to pursue this, we are now in need of some effort to
> develop a framework for
> inter-domain diverse path computation.
>
> We're now trying to put some text together for this (if it is a
> small amount of text it
> will go into the existing framework draft - if it turns out to be
> a lot of text it will go
> into its own draft). I know that you, Vishal, have volunteered to
> get the ball rolling and
> when I have your text I will add my own (politically correct)
> spin before putting it out
> to the list for debate.

Sure, great. I know I've promised this, and we need to discuss
some of this to know just how much we should write.
I guess we'll talk off-line and come up with something that
nicely captures the essense of the diverse path computation
issue for the framework draft (or another one).