Subject: [Ecrit] ECRIT requirements: R5 reprise

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:52:58 -0400

We had a fair-sized discussion on R5 at the beginning of July.  Marc 
formulated an alternative statement that seemed to hold promise.  Andrew 
ignored it and quarelled with Henning instead.  I suggest we go with 
Marc's formulation with a slight tweak:

"R5: The mapping protocol should allow for alternative redundant sources 
of mapping information, possibly of different degrees of currency.

"Motivation: This provides the possibility of having available 
alternative sources of mapping information when the normal source is 
unavailable or unreachable, without specifying the means by which the 
alternative source is created or updated."

I think this proposition has concrete implications for protocol design, 
hence should be stated.

Tom Taylor

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:27:45 -0400

On Sep 19, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Tom-PT Taylor wrote:

> We had a fair-sized discussion on R5 at the beginning of July.   
> Marc formulated an alternative statement that seemed to hold  
> promise.  Andrew ignored it and quarelled with Henning instead.  I  
> suggest we go with Marc's formulation with a slight tweak:

I did not see Marc's message, and still do not see it in my local  
copy or the IETF archives (I'm not doubting it was sent, I'm just  
curious why I missed it).

BTW, I was not the only one with objections to R5.  Ted proposed an  
alternative as well.

> "R5: The mapping protocol should allow for alternative redundant  
> sources of mapping information, possibly of different degrees of  
> currency.
>
> alternative sources of mapping information when the normal source  
> is unavailable or unreachable, without specifying the means by  
> which the alternative source is created or updated."
>
> I think this proposition has concrete implications for protocol  
> design, hence should be stated.

Well, I like this much better than the current version.  Perhaps a  
slight tweak:

R5: The mapping protocol should not inhibit the deployment of  
alternative redundant sources of mapping information, possibly of  
different degrees of currency."

-andy

---

From: "Tom-PT Taylor" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:46:08 -0400

I'll buy your tweak, and I do apologize: it was Ted, not Marc.

Andrew Newton wrote:
>> formulated an alternative statement that seemed to hold  promise.  
>> Andrew ignored it and quarelled with Henning instead.  I  suggest we 
>> go with Marc's formulation with a slight tweak:
> 
> 
> I did not see Marc's message, and still do not see it in my local  copy 
> or the IETF archives (I'm not doubting it was sent, I'm just  curious 
> why I missed it).
>