stephan
> As MIB editing is a real mystery for protocols geeks
how did you come to that observation ?
- d.
"STEPHAN Emile RD-CORE-LAN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17/01/2007 17:54
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Romascanu, Dan \(Dan\)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Feed-back required
ondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt
Hi,
I support adopting this ID as a WG document.
As the editor of the PCE TC MIB and of the PCE DISC MIB I have de facto
experimented it and consider that a manageability section should be added
to any I-D:
It permits the editor to start the editing earlier than previously;
It gives straight forward directions to the editors and weighs clearly the
management options;
The scope of theses sections is wider than MIB editing and covers any kind
of management interfaces;
As MIB editing is a real mystery for protocols geeks, this draft provides
them with guidance to extract and to structure the manageability
requirements of the protocol they are specifying.
Regards
Emile
De : JP Vasseur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : vendredi 12 janvier 2007 20:29
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Fwd: [Pce] WG Feed-back required
ondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt
Dear WG,
We had so far a few (and positive) feed-backs, it would be nice to get
more feed-back on this (in particular several of the usual contributors
haven't expressed their opinion).
Thanks.
Happy New Year to all of you.
JP.
Begin forwarded message:
From: JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 3, 2007 1:12:59 PM EST
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
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
