RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Tom,

Let's stick to the principles. A requirement draft, should set the stage for multiple competing proposals, so that the WG could choose from. Adding protocol requirements that are reverse engineered from a single solution, violates this basic principle.

I understand your point, that a solution that presumably works has been developed, and it would be costly for you to replace it. But such a cost should be expected when one develops a proprietary or pre-standard solution.

Besides removing the protocol requirements, will not disqualify your solution.   

Yours,
-Shahram

> -----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. 
>