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

[Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer@nayna.com>]

Hi Jim and others:

What Jerry is saying is TE requirements draft says - yes we need
inter-area TE. Inter-area requirements document (assuming the
need for TE), what protocol mechanisms are required. Hope this is
a next step to promote a unified solution.

Regards,

sudheer

Jim Boyle wrote:

> 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
> >
begin:vcard 
n:Dharanikota;Sudheer
tel;work:408-956-8000 x357
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.cs.odu.edu/~sudheer
org:Nayna Networks Inc.;CTO's office
version:2.1
email;internet:sudheer@nayna.com
title:Network Architect
adr;quoted-printable:;;481 Sycamore Drive=0D=0AMilpitas, CA 95035 USA;;;;
fn:Sudheer Dharanikota
end:vcard