RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

>I think instead of debating whether Y.1711 is better than LSP-ping/GTTP or 
>vice versa, it would be more
>constructive to identify and document the applicability of each proposal 
>for various tunneling applications.

         This sounds like a move in the right direction.

>For this particular draft my suggestion at this stage is that the Bonica's 
>requirement draft be revised to:
>
>1) Add text (or at least a place holder) for additional security issues 
>raised on the list.
>2) Add backward compatibility, simplicity and scalability as requirements.

         I can go along with those.

>3) Remove the protocol requirements section, since any requirement here 
>will be viewed as a reverse engineering of some solution.

         Although this might sound reasonable to some, I think that some 
may object to this
since the protocol requirements are viewed by some as fundamental to the 
requirements
of any particular solution.  In the flurry of emails on the topic, I have 
not been able to
keep track of what the consensus on this might be (either way). Perhaps Ron 
has been keeping
track?

>Then any offered solution should have text to show to what extent they 
>fulfill the
>requirements, and what is their applicability and restrictions.

         Sounds reasonable.

         --Tom






------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.