Subject: Re: FE model open issues

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:52:09 -0800

Hi Avri

My reason for saying this is based on the feedback we received from the
IESG on the Requirements draft that explicitly asked us to clarify this.
If you see section 6.5, point#8 we added an explicit sentence to clarify
this before the Requirements was approved by the IESG. The Applicability
Statement authors had also asked me for the same clarification a long
time back. You have raised a valid question, however on this topic I do
believe that we will have to consider a lot of factors that have not
been considered so far, security just being one. And although the
charter may not preclude this, it does not include it either and I think
we will need a charter change if we are going to get into active
networking.

My 2 cents
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 8:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [FORCES] FE model open issues

On onsdag, nov 5, 2003, at 14:25 US/Central, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> If you mean downloading code onto FEs for new LFBs then this is
> out of the current scope of ForCES is my understanding.

I have seen this statement several times, but other then the assertion,
don't understand why it is out of scope.  There is nothing in the
charter that prohibits as far as I can tell.  I also don't see the
architecture are precluding it.

It seems to me an important capability to include even if current HW
designs cannot, currently, take advantage of a full dynamic capability.

It concerns me that at ever step of the decision process we seem t
limit the capability and the dynamicity of the architecture and of the
models.

a.

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:01:22 -0500

Hormuzd,

I'm super-busy today.  Robert and I are working on the evaluation draft
for Friday, and we are also putting together notes on netlink2 and FACT
based on our dinner conversation last week.  Stay tuned; we should have
something available as a baseline for discussion before the end of the
week.

Regards,

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steven L. Blake               <[email-masked]>
Ericsson IP Infrastructure                +1 919-472-9913

---

From: Steven Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:07:39 -0500

> something available as a baseline for discussion before the end of the

Sorry for misdirecting this private mail; I guess I should have my
e-mail license revoked.