Yes I support this being adopted as a WG I-D. Tom Petch
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "tom.petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "JP Vasseur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt > Hi Tom, > > >I think that this draft should start from a broader perspective of what > > management is before getting into what I see as the details, especially if > > the > > intent is to roll it out across other WG. I think that that is > > particularly > > important in PCE because of the specialised usage of the term management > > that > > may crop up (as in the individual ccamp I-D that was entitled > > 'GMPLS Signaling Extensions for the Transfer of Ownership of Label > > Switched > > Paths Between the Management and Control Planes' > > which is not a use of the word management that I expect many in the IETF - > > but > > not other SDOs - outside these working groups would recognise). > > Hmmm. > I'm a bit disappointed if folks don't recognise the term Management Plane, > but I believe you. > > Yes, I see no reason why a future revision of this I-D within the working > group should not include a summary of FCAPS to set the context and explain > why there are requirements. > > > I might use a model of management as made up of:- > > Security, Accounting, Configuration, Fault, Performance; > > of which, Security is already accounted for, Accounting is out of scope > > and the > > remaining detail items are structured under one of the other three. > > > > I am concerned that, without a paragraph or two of overview along these > > lines, > > the wood will be lost amongst the trees. > > I guess you should see this as iterating towards the right thing. We started > with a baren plane with no trees. Now we have a lot of trees. You would like > to be able to perform some taxonomy and dendritic analysis - fair enough. We > will get there. > > But it sounds like you welcome the general principle, and that we can use > this I-D as a basis for WG progress. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
