hi j-p
the doc is ok as long as it refers to the manageability of the protocol
that is detailed in the corr. i-d - we can express several concerns
whether such details are useful or not ... practicing will tell us
a couple of comments though
-- concerns on section 3.3 - it will for each document open the pandora
box of the protocol dependencies - these should remain at most
illustrative otherwise
o) becoming restrictive with respect to the protocol applicability -
o) potentially impacting and/or assuming other protocol(s) behaviour
-- generally speaking, the document should state that manageability
description shall ideally remain device/implementation independent (of
course there will be always exceptions)
-- the document says "3.1 Control of Function and Policy
This sub-section describes the configurable items that exist for the
control of function or policy"
the control of functions - via the protocol elements described in the
document is important - but the term policy is to vague at which level of
the policy specification does that section applies
-- the document on network operations is important as it forces the writer
to document the dimensions impacting the protocol deployment nevertheless
assuming this is the case (taking the example of the doc. the implementer
is aware of the scaling threat) which mechanism are in place to prevent
protocol deployment ? i guess this boils down somehow to the RFC 1264
discussion and ultimately to the usefulness of the doc. not in terms of
description but actual practice
hope it will help
- d.
JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
03/01/2007 19:12
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: "Dan \(\(Dan\)\) Romascanu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Pce] WG Feed-back required on
draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt
Dear WG,
The idea of adding a Manageability section to IDs was first
introduced by Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 2006 (for
reference, see the WG minutes) since then two revisions of draft-
farrel-pce-manageability-requirements have been published based on
the comments received from members of the PCE WG and OPS ADs.
My recollection of the discussions about this ID is a general good
support from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to Dan for his
help). The were some concerns from Lou that have been addressed in
the latest revision of the draft.
Furthermore, there are several IDs in the works for which the authors
agreed to add a manageability section and "experiment" the process
that may have to be tuned as we'll move forward.
Because, this ID does have some implication on (current and future)
PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a WG document.
Thanks.
JP.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
