RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

["Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO" <ecuevas@att.com>]

Tom,
Could you provide us with a matrix (comply/does not comply) of the tools you are talking about vs. the requirements given in Y.1710?

Enrique
_______________
ecuevas@att.com
Tel. (732)-420-3252


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:tnadeau@cisco.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:07 AM
>To: David Allan
>Cc: Shahram Davari; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02 
>
>
>
>
>>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. 
>
>