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

[Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

At 09:19 AM 12/4/2001 -0500, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCTA
wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Jim Boyle wrote:
>
> >> We would like to call for agreement that
> >> a) draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt calls for multi-area
> TE
> >> requirements to be generated, but contains no such requirements
> (Section
> 3
> >> says "requirements for multi-area traffic engineering need
> to be
> developed
> >> to provide guidance for any necessary protocol
> extensions"), and
> >> b) draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt be adopted as a
> multi-area TE
> >> requirements draft.
>
> > I for one will disagree with your proposal of need for
> additional
> > (ancillary?) requirements documents at this time.
>
> I hope others are still going to comment/vote on the proposal, even
> though
> the WG chair perhaps 'called the election outcome' even before the
> first
> vote was cast...
>
> > In the interest of progress, I would suggest we just strike the
> sentences
> > which call for more requirements documents (from within the
> requirements
> > documents on the matter!)
>
> The TEWG was chartered to do requirements, and that's why CCAMP is doing
> the
> protocol work.  It's pretty unclear why we had a 9-month 'TEWG
> requirements
> design team' effort to just conclude that 'we're not going to do
> requirements'.  It's hard to see how this is 'progress'.
>
> > or leave them there and see what's on the
> > table of technical proposals.  The sentence "... may need
> to be extended."
> > captures the scope sufficiently, 
>
> There are many proposed approaches to multi-area TE, and there is a need
> to
> sort out which of these should be advanced in CCAMP.  You seem to
> propose
> that the CCAMP protocol work *not* be driven by requirements?  I
> believe
> that many see the need for requirements, hopefully folks will comment yea
> or
> nay.
>
> > I'm not sure another 40 pages of
> > requirements discussion will be of any practical result.
>
> The proposed requirements take about 1/2 page, and perhaps could be added
> to
> the base requirements document.  Again I hope we hear other opinions
> on the
> list.

        I personally agree with Jim's comment regarding additional
requirements documents.

        

--Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.