[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area
Right, David.
Yeah, the intention is certainly not to create process overhead.
And, in fact, the PCE WG is perfectly capable of adopting this work without
further input. Actually, that is exactly what is happening.
However...
- I would like this written down so that the PCE WG can solicit input
from the Ops Area. That means we need an I-D of some form
(although it doesn't need to progress to become an RFC)
- It would be good to have formal output from the 'experiment' so
that the wider IETF (and in particular the IESG) can judge the
results and decide about applying the idea more widely. Of course
there are many ways to provide this feedback, but it seemed to me
that 3933 has a suitable framework.
Perhaps what I should do is use the form of 3933 to drive the work
(including writing an I-D), but never bother pushing it through to be an
RFC?
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kessens" <david.kessens@nokia.com>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>; <ops-area@ops.ietf.org>;
"Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org>; "'Jean Philippe Vasseur'" <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Requirements for manageability in the routing area
Adrian,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 11:29:40PM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
She also says that there was some discussion on the appropriateness of
using 3933 for an experiment in the PCE working group. While I can see
that
there might be a thought that the process experiment would be too heavy
for
the PCE working group, I wonder what objection there could be to the use
of
the experiment.
A very simple and pragmatic reason: there is no requirement for a
published RFC to do all this. Producing an RFC will take time & effort
which can be used for other purposes.
I hope this helps,
David Kessens
---