RE: Progressing MAM

["Choudhury, Sanjaya" <Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com>]

Hi! In my opinion, the most interesting part of the draft
"draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-01" lies in the Appendix (and not
in the brief specification of the MAM). May be the authors,
should consider presenting this document as a comparative
study/analysis of existing BC Models.

Although, the detailed (comparative) analysis of different
BC Models is quite useful, I am not sure it belongs in the
individual BC Model specification (Are we going to add this
as an appendix to all BC Model Specifications?)

Thanks,
sanjay


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:40 AM
> To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; Francois
> Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jim Boyle; Ed Kern (ejk)
> Subject: RE: Progressing MAM
> 
> 
> > I would like to get a sense of the list about using this 
> document as the
> > basis for the WG MAM specification and for accepting this as a WG
> > document. Thoughts anyone?
> 
> There is another proposed MAM specification draft at 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-01
> .txt.  This I-D  should also be considered for the MAM 
> specification.  I believe it would be best to combine the 
> efforts into a unified specification draft.
>  
> > The material providing analysis of the various 
> merits/shortcomings of
> > various models is very useful stuff for the WG, but I would suggest
> > keeping this information in a document separate from the MAM
> > specification. Rationale include:
> >     - MAM definition has been thoroughly discussed/agreed in WG and
> > could be finalized very quickly, while detailed analysis 
> > still requires more WG time.
> >     - pros/cons analysis is of informational nature while the MAM
> > specification has MUST/SHOULD.
> 
> I disagree.  The pros/cons analysis should be an integral 
> part of the specification (as in an Appendix) to provide 
> critical guidance to users' implementation of the models in 
> their networks.  There are some very important guidelines 
> which users should be aware of before choosing a BC model for 
> their network.  
> 
> Unless this essential information is progressed together with 
> the specification, it may well get lost, delayed, or at least 
> be hard for users to come by.  We already have analysis 
> already in hand in 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-01.txt, so there
should be no delay caused by its inclusion or need for more WG time.  There
is no down-side to including the analysis in an Appendix to the
specification.

Furthermore, the Russian Doll BC specification draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-01.txt
lacks this kind of critical analysis, which should be added before the draft
goes forward (will post this comment when RD specification goes to last
call).

Jerry