RE: Comments on Applicability Statement

["Dave Cooper" <dcooper@gblx.net>]

>
> > It shouldn't, in my estimation, make comments as to how
> something untested
> > might be applicable
>
> > There is enough experience deploying traffic
> > engineering techniques in operational IP networks that the applicability
> > statement should be based on that.
>
> > What do others think?
>
> I think the applicability statement should *not* be limited to only what's
> already implemented and tested.

The scope of the applicability statement shouldn't delve into requirements,
IMO.
It should state whats applicable and feasible with regards to whats
available
today to address Traffic Engineering in ISP networks.

Ways to address new problems should be folded into a requirements draft
focused
specifically on the problem to solve.  That way they can be reviewed,
debated
and worked on independent of the TEAPP.

dave

>
> According to the TEWG charter, "[the tewg documents] ISP uses,
> requirements,
> desires (TEBCPs)"
>
> Current operational TE methods are limited to what vendors are offering,
> which right now are rudimentary capabilities for TE.  Therefore, the
> TEWG/carriers are specifying requirements for TE methods that
> they feel are
> required/desired.  Such required TE methods can only become
> operational when
> vendors implement the features recommended through standards.
>
> I'm not aware that vendors already offer, and carriers already implement,
> the TE features needed to fully support provisioning,
> measurement, control,
> routing, resource allocation, design, and operation of MPLS/TE networks.
>
>
>
>