Subject: RE: [seamoby] Update to the requirements draft

From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:27:09 -0500

I would support this. In addition, I would like to add:

I think we should put it in subject to the comments. I don't think it
should say anything about numbers.
How about:

        The CT protocol SHOULD be scalable at an acceptable cost. The CT
protocol SHOULD scale at most linearly
        with the number of participating network nodes.
The CT protocol SHOULD scale at most linearly with the number of contexts
and context features being transferred.

-Sharif.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 13:41:47 -0800

Fine with me.

Any other objections? If not, can we call it done and have Gary update
for submission before Wed.?

        jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>
To: "'James Kempf'" <[email-masked]>; "Shahrier, Sharif M."
<[email-masked]>; "'Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1'"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: [seamoby] Update to the requirements draft

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:29:21 -0800

James,

while I strongly support the desire to move ahead, it is not a good idea
to incorporate a requirement without a clear sense of what it means.. As
Gary pointed out, having a criterion to evaluate scalability is tricky.
I can resonably understand what is "acceptable cost"; however, it is not
something we can use to evaluate alternatives.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:37:06 -0800

Sharif,

We cannot get concensus on this requirement.

I would suggest we drop it and move ahead with the draft given two
additions, namely 5.6.1 and modified wording for 5.1.2.
Sorry.

Gary, Rajeev, Sharif,

If the IESG decides they want a scability requirement, you can be
assured we will get a comment back and we will need to put one in. But
we can try it and see.

Gary,

Can you please write up the draft with these modifications and submit
it? We really *do* need to get moving on this.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajeev Koodli" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Shahrier, Sharif M." <[email-masked]>; "'Nakhjiri
Madjid-MNAKHJI1'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [seamoby] Update to the requirements draft

> > >         The CT protocol SHOULD be scalable at an acceptable cost.
The
> > CT