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

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Jerry,

> >> 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.

Since you asked for "other opinions", here is mine. I completely agree
with Jim wrt additional requirements documents.

Yakov.