Re: Work on MPLS and tunneling approaches in scenarios

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Jasminko Mulahusic wrote:
> following would be a more reasonable way to go:
> 
> 1/ finish scenario/analysis work.
> 2/ review the results of that work and see if there are any missing
> mechanisms.
> 3/ document those missing pieces along with their requirements, potential
> usage cases, etc.

Actually, the scenarios/analysis work is actually meant to capture all 
of that.  For the specific case of IPv6 over MPLS, I think these have 
been explicitly documented in a lot of detail already.  The others 
may need a bit improvement (which will be done in the revision of the 
documents), but these will elaborated a bit on today's session.  

This will be discussed at a lot of length in the session today.

> 4/ ask the wg/ad:s how/where to proceed. [and as brian pointed out, maybe
> a new wg might be a better place].
> 
> now, nobody has said that some of the above cannot be done i parallel, but
> doing 4/ without finishing 1/ first seems premature thing to do. imho. why
> such a hurry?

People have been had to wait (more or less) for about 2 years or so,
and aren't happy.  We must hurry.  The important thing is that the
work gets done, which WG it will be at is secondary -- but that is
being discussed.

The analysis documents are much more useful to the audience if they in 
fact include the analysis.  3 of them are past WG last call already.  
Therefore, I'm quite confident that those can be finished within a 
month or so, and if we manage 

Hope this clarifies.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings