RE: WG last call: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt

[Jim Boyle <jboyle@pdnets.com>]

You're text does not make it "clear" to me.

Can you propose some text which captures what you see as objective
criteria?

My pass would be to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph such as:

"The default bandwidth model should be one that can address the scenarios
in section 2 in a manner which balances bandwidth efficiency as well as
signaling overhead."

I'm not sure if that will allow us to converge on a model, but at least it
specifies some objective criteria to judge different models by.  Plus,
with just one sentence and no value statements on models as you had
previously suggested, I think we can add it in and progress the draft.

Does this sound ok?

Jim

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALASO wrote:

> Jim,
>   I think our proposal to add some text in the requirements doc for
> BC model is in the same spirit as in Section 4 "Solution Evaluation
> Criteria" of this document for solutions supporting DS-TE.
>
>   Let me quote again the paragraph in question:
>     "At the time of writing this document, it is not clear whether a
>     single model of Bandwidth Constraints is sufficient, which one it
>     should be and how flexible this model really needs to be and what
>     are the implications on the DS-TE technical solution and its
>     implementations. The DS-TE technical solution must specify one
>     default bandwidth constraint model which must be supported by any
>     DS-TE implementation."
>
>   Regarding the first sentence, we have now some new information on the
> implications of the BC models, which is contrary to what is stated as
> "it is not clear".
>
>   More importantly, the second sentence in above text only says that
> one default needs to be specified *without going into the specific
> selection criteria*.  We believe that some criteria to be considered
> include at least:
> (1) performance under normal conditions versus service protection
>     and isolation capability under overload (as stated in my previous
>     email)
> (2) signaling load processing requirements (as stated in the email by
>     Rudiger Geib)
>
>   As I explicitly stated in my previous email, we fully agree that the
> requirements doc is not the place to resolve what the default model
> should be.  Thus, we have no objection to continuing this discussion
> in the context of draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-00.txt, but see a
> need/value in identifying criteria and referencing relevant studies
> in the requirements document.
>
> Thanks, Wai Sum.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:15 AM
> To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
> Cc: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALASO; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG last call: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-reqts-04.txt
>
>
>
> Jerry - it is already specified in the requirements document that the
> bandwidth constraint model must be specified in the technical solution
> document:
>
> 	"The DS-TE technical solution must specify one
>    default bandwidth constraint model which must be supported by any
>    DS-TE implementation"
>
> How = IETF process, Where = TEWG.  Do we really need to state that?
>
> As for making comparisons between models in the draft, I don't think
> it's
> called for.  I think making references to documents which describe them
> is
> also something that isn't necessary in the requirements document.  As
> for
> adding some text as to the decision must be made on "hard information" -
> I
> see that as a no-value addition to the document.
>
> What objection do you and Wai have to having this discussion in the
> context of draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-00.txt ?
>
> Jim
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO wrote:
>
> > > The discussion on what should be the default bandwidth constraint
> > > model should be done in the context of the solution draft.
> >
> > This should be stated as a requirement in Section 3.3 of the
> requirements draft.
> >
> > > The paragraph you quote makes it clear that the requirements draft
> leaves that
> > > discussion squarely with the technical solution.
> >
> > Nowhere in Section 3.3 of the requirements draft is it stated how or
> where the technical solution will be decided.  It should be stated as a
> requirement in Section 3.3 that "the default BC model will be decided in
> the context of the technical solution draft."
> >
> > > I don't see a need for any text revision of the requirements draft
> before
> > > sending it on to the IESG.
> > > Anyone else have any comment?
> >
> > Yes.  An additional requirement should be added in Section 3.3:
> > "the default BC model must be based on available hard information,
> such as analysis given in [forthcoming lai-id] [other relevant
> references]."
> >
> > Also, Wai Sum's suggested short explanation of the essence of his
> analysis is highly relevant to Section 3.3, and shouldn't be rejected
> out of hand.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
>
>
>
>