Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt

From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCTA" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:19:03 -0500

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Jim Boyle wrote:

>> We would like to call for agreement that
>> a) draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt calls for multi-area TE
>> requirements to be generated, but contains no such requirements (Section
3
>> says "requirements for multi-area traffic engineering need to be
developed
>> to provide guidance for any necessary protocol extensions"), and
>> b) draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt be adopted as a multi-area TE
>> requirements draft.

> I for one will disagree with your proposal of need for additional
> (ancillary?) requirements documents at this time.

I hope others are still going to comment/vote on the proposal, even though
the WG chair perhaps 'called the election outcome' even before the first
vote was cast...

> In the interest of progress, I would suggest we just strike the sentences
> which call for more requirements documents (from within the requirements
> documents on the matter!)

The TEWG was chartered to do requirements, and that's why CCAMP is doing the
protocol work.  It's pretty unclear why we had a 9-month 'TEWG requirements
design team' effort to just conclude that 'we're not going to do
requirements'.  It's hard to see how this is 'progress'.

> or leave them there and see what's on the
> table of technical proposals.  The sentence "... may need to be extended."
> captures the scope sufficiently, 

There are many proposed approaches to multi-area TE, and there is a need to
sort out which of these should be advanced in CCAMP.  You seem to propose
that the CCAMP protocol work *not* be driven by requirements?  I believe
that many see the need for requirements, hopefully folks will comment yea or
nay.

> I'm not sure another 40 pages of
> requirements discussion will be of any practical result.

The proposed requirements take about 1/2 page, and perhaps could be added to
the base requirements document.  Again I hope we hear other opinions on the
list.

Thanks,
Jerry

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:54:29 -0500 (EST)

> the WG chair perhaps 'called the election outcome' even before the first

I didn't "call it", I just stated my opinion, cast my vote, so to say.

> requirements'.  It's hard to see how this is 'progress'.

I thought it was the consensus of the team, and the WG that there were not
immediate needs for vertical hierarchy, and indeed the needs for
horizontal were rather simple at this time (at least as viewed by people
who would intend to use any of this any time soon).

> the base requirements document.  Again I hope we hear other opinions on the

$ wc -l draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-00.txt
    904 draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-00.txt

904 lines.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:05:40 -0800

Jerry,

> >> 3 says "requirements for multi-area traffic engineering need to be
> >> developed to provide guidance for any necessary protocol extensions"), and

Since you asked for "other opinions", here is mine. I completely agree
with Jim wrt additional requirements documents.

Yakov.

---

From: Sudheer Dharanikota <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:41:41 -0800

Hi Jim and others:

What Jerry is saying is TE requirements draft says - yes we need
inter-area TE. Inter-area requirements document (assuming the
need for TE), what protocol mechanisms are required. Hope this is
a next step to promote a unified solution.

Regards,

sudheer

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:49:42 -0500

> the WG chair perhaps 'called the election outcome' even before the first

you asked?  i agree with the chair.  an transport person from a large
carrier sitting right next to me thinks this stuff is about as realistic
as i think it is.  not.

randy (no ad hat)

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:36:15 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> you asked?  i agree with the chair.

	who also was without hat

>  an transport person from a large

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:20:27 -0800 (PST)

> the WG chair perhaps 'called the election outcome' even before the first

BTW, the vote was cast, counted, recounted, and finished quite a while
back, when no one responded to the Last Call that Jim sent out on the DT's
draft.

Oops, I forgot, we don't vote at the IETF.

Kireeti.