RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Ping/Loa,

Can you please be more specific about the 'problem' you are talking about
here.....and are you both talking about the same problem or different
problems?  It would help me at least understand better if you can explain:
-	what is the problem?
-	what is the impact on customers?
-	how does the operator detect detect the problem in the 1st place?
-	how does tunneltrace diagnose the problem?
-	what are the expected consequent actions to fix it?

thanks, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa.andersson@utfors.se]
> Sent: 27 February 2002 08:53
> To: Ping Pan
> Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> don't know if my opinion registred in this show of hands. Anyway I say
> (a). It is an identified problem, we need to deal with it and 
> by making
> a WG doc, the working groupd can start working with it.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> Ping Pan wrote:
> 
> > Kireeti,
> > 
> > 
> > The requirement from Ron address the problem that we have 
> been seen in 
> > the network today. This is an issue that we have to deal 
> with it NOW. I 
> > vote (a).
> > 
> > - Ping
> > 
> > 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:47 PM
> >>> To: David Allan
> >>> Cc: neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com; 
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> >>> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Let me say a few words:
> >>>
> >>> 1) There was good support for this work (the requirements doc) to
> >>>   be a WG document at a previous IETF.  It is a good thing to
> >>>   follow up and check what the mailing list thinks, as 
> not everyone
> >>>   attends IETFs.
> >>>
> >>> 2) It is interesting that no one brought up the issue of 
> whether this
> >>>   work (tunnel tracing) is in the charter or not at the meeting.
> >>>   There are those who think the charter isn't explicit 
> enough.  I'll
> >>>   talk to the ADs and see (a) if they think that this *is* in the
> >>>   charter; (b) if not, are they willing to take it to the IESG and
> >>>   add it to the charter.
> >>>
> >>>   My input on this (as WG chair) is that CCAMP is all 
> about tunnels,
> >>>   and a protocol to debug and test tunnels is well within 
> scope, even
> >>>   if not called out explicitly.
> >>>
> >>>   Note that the charter is *not* subject to WG consensus, nor even
> >>>   the WG chairs.  The IESG (and IAB?) are solely responsible,
> >>>   although the WG and chairs can suggest changes.
> >>>
> >>> 3) A document that is "in the right spirit" can become a 
> WG document,
> >>>   even if there are disagreements about some details, and even
> >>>   "fundamental" questions.  Note that "fundamental" is often
> >>>   subjective.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to have the mailing list equivalent of a 
> 'show of hands'
> >>> regarding this draft.  Do you think:
> >>> (a) it should be a WG document?
> >>> (b) it's good stuff, but not ready?
> >>> (c) we need a new start?
> >>>
> >>> Please send in your opinions with one of the above up top.  Any
> >>> detailed reasoning you have for your opinion may follow.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> Kireeti.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Loa Andersson
> Chief Architect,
> Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
> Utfors AB
> Råsundavägen 12
> Box 525, 169 29 Solna
> Office          +46 8 5270 2000
> Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
> Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
> Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
> WWW             www.utfors.se
> 
>