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

["Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@Marconi.com>]

Yakov:

-> > -> > b. do we need multi-area te requirements?
-> > 
-> >    Yes, for a unified solution.
-> 
-> if a unified solution can't be produced without multi-area te
-> requirements, then perhaps we could pursue a non-unified
-> solution...

  I prefer to avoid this situation. I am not asking for 
  *every one in the list/world should accept the
  multi-area TE proposal*. But at least the majority.

  If we are able to produce a unified solution even with 
  out multi-area TE requirements, that is fine. But as
  you know well, that is difficult.

-> > -> > if yes, then
-> > -> > c. should we add these requrements to 
-> > -> draft-ietf-restore-hierarchy-00.txt?
-> > -> > if no, then
-> > -> > d. what should we do about multi-area te requirements?
-> > 
-> >    Place doesn't matter - content matters!
-> 
-> Actually what really matters is working code and operational
-> experience. 
 
   I perfectly agree.

-> And it is far from obvious (at least to me) that a
-> requirements document is going to provide a useful contribution to
-> either the working code or the operational experience.
 
   I don't have as much experience as you do w.r.t above, 
   but I can see DS-TE is going fine after so many different 
   opinions. More over, there were 2 requirement docs, 
   TEWG DS-TE Requirements and MPLSWG DS-TE Requirements.

   Finally, I agree that we need working code but I don't
   agree to the consensus about *not* supporting hierarchy.

--Venkata Naidu