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

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCTA" <gash@att.com>]

Yakov,

Comments below.

Thanks,
Jerry


> But I don't think that in order to produce a working code that
> addresses a real life problem it is necessary to have a requirements
> document produced by the IETF WG. In fact, I have an existence
> proof that plenty of working code that addresses real life problems
> have been produced with no requirements documents produced by the
> IETF WGs (just think of OSPF, BGP, etc...)

Yes, but I can also cite (many) examples where the requirements -> working-code model had glowing success.  Many SPs believe that this model has value because the requirements specify (oftentimes in detail) exactly what is needed and is going to be used.  This avoids a tendency (in the absence of requirements) to code a lot of bells and whistles which may sound good, but aren't needed or going to get used in the real world.

The TEWG is chartered to do requirements.  Are you suggesting requirements be dropped from the Charter?  I for one would like to see an even stronger effort toward requirements:  GMPLS (probably too late..), MPLS-OAM, etc.