hi,
i would say that 1) should be considered iff there have been several identified misbehaviour detected and inconsistencies observed such that a set of prescriptive guidelines have to be put together (but this would translate some "common" mis-interpretation of the set of documents we currently have)
if this is not the case, then beside some base description/clarification, i don't see how we could turn this into 2) or 3) without obtaining a larger sample of CSPF/routing practices - the difference between 2) and 3) being that in the former case, information gathered is processed to describe practices and devise operational guidelines while in the latter the document appears as a collection of practices from individual practices
in any case, and in order to progress - we need more feedback -
thanks,
-dimitri.
Tomohiro Otani <otani@kddilabs.jp>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
07/19/2005 09:48 ZE9
To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
bcc:
Subject: Re: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-00
Hi Dimitri,
Per our initial discussion, we would like to formulate
the unified view on CSPF consideration, and we simply
thought it is BCP.
Considering more deeply, our draft does not define the
protocol itself but the protocol related specification
In that sense, you are right, it is prescriptive more
than descriptive for guiding operations. Moreover, I came
up my mind that it may be more standard track than informational.
But I am not sure. What's your thought on this ?
With best regards,
tomo
PS: We posted 01 version.
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
>authors, is the purpose of the above mentioned draft:
>
> 1. prescriptive (even if informational)
>
> 2. descriptive for guiding operations (BCP)
>
> 3. informative (survey-like)
>
>from what i read, it is more 1 like - is my understanding correct ?
>
>
>