Tom:
Your statement that requirements support the tools/mechanisms that work today is the nib of my concern. Basically the requirments step is redundant at that point. We are now in a tight embrace where the requirements justify the solution and the solution dictates the requirements. Suggesting the requirements is a WG work item would appear to be an oxymoron.
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:47 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
>
>
>
> >Thanks for your positive response. With regards to the
> protocol requirements,
> >which ones do you think MUST be there and why?
>
> I think that the protocol requirements for those
> solutions that
> currently
> exist should be in there. I understand your point about
> reverse engineering the tools, but unfortunately the
> requirement writing effort
> started after we had some solutions working. Therefore
> protocol requirements
> do matter because they support the tools/mechanisms that work
> today. No
> need to obviate those things at this point.
>
> >In my view protocol requirements should not unnecessarily
> restrict the
> >solution,
> >unless they violate application requirements.
>
> I think that protocol requirements should be in line
> with the
> application
> requirements that have come from operational folks working at
> SPs. However,
> application requirements should fit within existing protocols
> as much as
> possible (to promote reuse of existing software/tools). We should not
> be forced to reinvent the wheel just for the sake of doing so.
>
> --Tom
>
>
>
> >-Shahram
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 4:25 PM
> > > To: Shahram Davari
> > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >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.
> > >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
>
>
>