RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-measure-05.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geib, Ruediger [mailto:Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com]
> Sent: maandag 28 april 2003 15:50
> To: bwijnen@lucent.com
> Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-measure-05.txt 
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> | > 'I would expect a CRISP set of "requirements for additional 
> | > measurements, configurable/negotiable parameters/controls" 
> | > ... but not the extensive exploration and text that I now see'.
> 
> I understood the document to be a Framework Document. Crisp 
> requirements may be part of a requirements doc or the like. 
> 
In my view, a "framework" or "architecture" document is totally 
different from what the current ID describes. 

> The quality of the document is good as a Framework Document.

But the WG charter does not ask for a "framework doc" or at least not
the way I understand it.

> I'd agree that an architecture or requirements doc 
> getting more precise might be useful.  
> Different network types and design philosophies result 
> in different measurement requirements. I'm not sure whether an 
> acceptable "General TE measurement requirements" doc is feasible.
> 
Well, Jeryr claims all the requirements are in the doc. Just too bad
that it is very difficult to find them. That is why I asked for such
a crsip list of requirements.

> | I do not consider them as speaking for their company, but indeed as
> | individuals. I'd like to see comments/review/support from all 
> | types of operators, that is carriers, telecom operators, cors ISPs,
> | Access ISPs, small ISPs, Enterpise Networks... etc.
> 
> I wasn't aware that there's something like an IESG qualification 
> profile if you want to vote on last call. I'd suggest that these 
> profiles are published with the last call, so that people whose opinion 
> isn't asked may save the time they've wasted on reading the document.
> 
The IESG does NOT have a "qualification profile". 
And EVERYONE's input and review is usefull and is welcome.
What we DO want is that if we write something for OPERATIONAL networks
that we DO get the input from the various types of OPERATORS that we
know about.

Why does everybody look at my comments as an attack on their personal input?
It is rather an attack (if you can speak of that) to those type of OPERATORS
that have NOT yet given review input (positive or negative). I am (in my
responsibility as AD) trying to get sufficient and wide enough review of
the document before I feel comfortable passing it to the IESG.

Hope this explains, Bert

> Regards, Rüdiger 
>