----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <opsawg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:58 AM
In the discussion of IETF consensus of this document and its position as a
BCP or otherwise, can I throw into the melting pot
draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-06.txt
Yes, a clear concise set of steps to follow when writing an I-D.
The other comment I would make on the I-D under Last Call is on the first
sentence of the abstract, to whit,
" New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due
consideration of functionality needed to operate and manage the
protocols. "
True, but not, I think, addressed by this document. There is plenty in this I-D
for the I-D editor but little for the protocol designer. The latter might
benefit
from advice on how to structure elements of the PDUs and the interchange of
PDUs; it may be difficult to know whether or not a network is functioning if
there is no keepalive. (A comparable discussion surfaced recently on
apps-discuss over the best way to encode lengths).
I appreciate that this I-D does not set out to give such advice but think that
someone reading the abstract might expect it to.
Tom Petch
This particular I-D was developed within the PCE working group to apply only
in that working group. It covers similar topics, but is more focused on
ensuring that the protocols that are developed in PCE are manageable.
The I-D has rough WG consensus (or did at the time I stopped being chair a
few months ago), but is not mandatory to implement within the WG.
It is my opinion that those PCE I-Ds that have taken the draft on board have
produced better solutions that will be more successfully implemented and
deployed.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf