Subject: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:42:45 -0000

Hi,

Following some mild interest two IETF's ago, we have updated this I-D.

The chief change is some fleshing out of the guidance for the content of
mandatory manageability sections, and the inclusion of an example from a
current I-D.

It seems to me that the Routing Area (under guidance of its ADs) now needs
to decide whether this is something we pursue and turn into a rule
(completing all of the details), or whether we should abandon the idea.

Thanks,
Adrian

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

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 13:09:54 -0500

Hi Adrian,

> (completing all of the details), or whether we should abandon the  

Personally in strong support.

JP.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:53:10 -0000

Hi,

What I heard in Vancouver was that the ADs would not want to make it
mandatory to include a Manageability Considerations section in Routing
Area I-Ds.

Not sure I agree with the logic of this (which seemed to be that people
will ignore the requirement or will simply add pass-through text), but if
that is the conclusion of the ADs, then I'm cool.

Question:
Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or should we throw it
out?

I think that before making a decision, it would be sensible to (re-)read
the early sections of the draft.

Cheers,
Adrian