[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt



On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Jim Boyle wrote:

>> We would like to call for agreement that
>> a) draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt calls for multi-area TE
>> requirements to be generated, but contains no such requirements (Section
3
>> says "requirements for multi-area traffic engineering need to be
developed
>> to provide guidance for any necessary protocol extensions"), and
>> b) draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt be adopted as a multi-area TE
>> requirements draft.

> I for one will disagree with your proposal of need for additional
> (ancillary?) requirements documents at this time.

I hope others are still going to comment/vote on the proposal, even though
the WG chair perhaps 'called the election outcome' even before the first
vote was cast...

> In the interest of progress, I would suggest we just strike the sentences
> which call for more requirements documents (from within the requirements
> documents on the matter!)

The TEWG was chartered to do requirements, and that's why CCAMP is doing the
protocol work.  It's pretty unclear why we had a 9-month 'TEWG requirements
design team' effort to just conclude that 'we're not going to do
requirements'.  It's hard to see how this is 'progress'.

> or leave them there and see what's on the
> table of technical proposals.  The sentence "... may need to be extended."
> captures the scope sufficiently, 

There are many proposed approaches to multi-area TE, and there is a need to
sort out which of these should be advanced in CCAMP.  You seem to propose
that the CCAMP protocol work *not* be driven by requirements?  I believe
that many see the need for requirements, hopefully folks will comment yea or
nay.

> I'm not sure another 40 pages of
> requirements discussion will be of any practical result.

The proposed requirements take about 1/2 page, and perhaps could be added to
the base requirements document.  Again I hope we hear other opinions on the
list.

Thanks,
Jerry