RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

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

>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.

         As I mentioned, some of the tools have already been worked
out, so yes, the cart is before the horse in some cases. However,
I don't think that this is necessarily a problem.

         --Tom



>Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas D. Nadeau 
> [<mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com>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>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.
> >
> >
> >



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