JP, Adrian, WG

I strongly support this document as PCE WG item and for general WG draft
use.

I wonder if in the 3.x section it might be useful to optionally break out a
legacy protocol interworking & native backward compatibility implications
subsection to briefly call attention to their management problem spaces.

I see the topic could fall under '3.5 Requirements on Other Protocols'
however I perceive from the text of that section that the focus is really
upon protocols that are impacted or required by the proposed protocol,
not necessarily older cousins that perform a similar function and might
pose a manageability problem worth reflecting upon.

Matthew Meyer

On 1/12/07, JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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

Reply via email to