RE: Progressing MAM

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Hello,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Choudhury, Sanjaya [mailto:Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com] 
>> Sent: 10 March 2003 15:57
>> To: 'Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS'; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> Cc: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; Francois Le Faucheur 
>> (flefauch); Jim Boyle; Ed Kern (ejk)
>> Subject: RE: Progressing MAM
>> 
>> 
>> Hi! In my opinion, the most interesting part of the draft
>> "draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-01" lies in the Appendix (and not
>> in the brief specification of the MAM). May be the authors,
>> should consider presenting this document as a comparative
>> study/analysis of existing BC Models.
>> 


I support Sanjaya's suggestion. I also believe it would be very
beneficial to progress tewg-bcmodel into a document focusing on the BC
Model comparisons. Perhaps it could be the base for a "BC Model
Applicability Statement"  (ie when is this model more applicable than
this one).
Cheers
Francois

>> Although, the detailed (comparative) analysis of different
>> BC Models is quite useful, I am not sure it belongs in the
>> individual BC Model specification (Are we going to add this
>> as an appendix to all BC Model Specifications?)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> sanjay
>> 
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com]
>> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 9:40 AM
>> > To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> > Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Lai, Wai S (Waisum), 
>> ALABS; Francois
>> > Le Faucheur (flefauch); Jim Boyle; Ed Kern (ejk)
>> > Subject: RE: Progressing MAM
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > I would like to get a sense of the list about using this 
>> > document as the
>> > > basis for the WG MAM specification and for accepting this as a WG
>> > > document. Thoughts anyone?
>> > 
>> > There is another proposed MAM specification draft at 
>> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-01
>> > .txt.  This I-D  should also be considered for the MAM 
>> > specification.  I believe it would be best to combine the 
>> > efforts into a unified specification draft.
>> >  
>> > > The material providing analysis of the various 
>> > merits/shortcomings of
>> > > various models is very useful stuff for the WG, but I 
>> would suggest
>> > > keeping this information in a document separate from the MAM
>> > > specification. Rationale include:
>> > >     - MAM definition has been thoroughly 
>> discussed/agreed in WG and
>> > > could be finalized very quickly, while detailed analysis 
>> > > still requires more WG time.
>> > >     - pros/cons analysis is of informational nature while the MAM
>> > > specification has MUST/SHOULD.
>> > 
>> > I disagree.  The pros/cons analysis should be an integral 
>> > part of the specification (as in an Appendix) to provide 
>> > critical guidance to users' implementation of the models in 
>> > their networks.  There are some very important guidelines 
>> > which users should be aware of before choosing a BC model for 
>> > their network.  
>> > 
>> > Unless this essential information is progressed together with 
>> > the specification, it may well get lost, delayed, or at least 
>> > be hard for users to come by.  We already have analysis 
>> > already in hand in 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wlai-tewg-bcmodel-0
1.txt, so there
should be no delay caused by its inclusion or need for more WG time.
There
is no down-side to including the analysis in an Appendix to the
specification.

Furthermore, the Russian Doll BC specification draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-russian-01.t
xt
lacks this kind of critical analysis, which should be added before the
draft
goes forward (will post this comment when RD specification goes to last
call).

Jerry