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

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCTA wrote:

> 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...


I didn't "call it", I just stated my opinion, cast my vote, so to say.

>
> > 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'.

I thought it was the consensus of the team, and the WG that there were not
immediate needs for vertical hierarchy, and indeed the needs for
horizontal were rather simple at this time (at least as viewed by people
who would intend to use any of this any time soon).

   > > > 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.

$ wc -l draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-00.txt
    904 draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-00.txt

904 lines.


>
> Thanks,
> Jerry
>