Subject: [karp] threats-reqs: New requirements document for KMP

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:37:13 -0400

Hi.  I noticed language (not sure if it is new) in 04 of threats-reqs
that claims we'll be developing another requirements document related to
KMP requirements.

My personal opinion is that would be an unnecessary delay.  

I think there are aspects of the KMP discussion where we do better need
to understand the requirements. For example, I don't think we have a
good view about how KMP interacts with RP surrounding issues like
TCP-AO's state, the key tables draft, etc. It's quite clear that Joe
Touch and I have different ideas on some of this as an example.  I think
we should have those discussions. I think some consensus calls will need
to be made even.

However, I do not believe that having a full requirements document will
be necessary to converge on a solution. I'd rather focus on technology
than process.

So as an individual I'm not in favor of a KMP requirements document nor
am I in favor of blocking on its completion before moving forward on KMP
work.

---

From: Brian Weis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:17:11 -0700

Hi Sam,

Thanks for your review. This is new text responding to a reviewer comment pointing out that this document only covers "PHASE 1" of the KARP Design Guide (RFC 6518). I believe the main contribution of the new text is to declare that "PHASE 2" is not being addressed in this I-D. The text you are objecting to is parenthetical text promising another requirements document. I propose removing this text and discussing the need for another requirements document independently.

Any objections from the authors or the WG?

Brian (Document shepherd hat on)

On Mar 15, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> karp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:26:34 -0400

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Weis <[email-masked]> writes:

    Brian> Hi Sam, Thanks for your review. This is new text responding
    Brian> to a reviewer comment pointing out that this document only
    Brian> covers "PHASE 1" of the KARP Design Guide (RFC 6518). I
    Brian> believe the main contribution of the new text is to declare
    Brian> that "PHASE 2" is not being addressed in this I-D. The text
    Brian> you are objecting to is parenthetical text promising another
    Brian> requirements document. I propose removing this text and
    Brian> discussing the need for another requirements document
    Brian> independently.

I support that proposal.

---

From: Uma Chunduri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:31:41 -0400

I don't see any objection here.

On this note, I presume each protocol Gap analysis document should capture both PHASE1 and PHASE2 (KMP) requirements. 
We did this for IS-IS (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chunduri-karp-is-is-gap-analysis/)

-- 
Uma C. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian Weis
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:17 PM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [karp] threats-reqs: New requirements document for KMP

Hi Sam,

On Mar 15, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> that claims we'll be developing another requirements document related 
> to KMP requirements.
> 
> I think there are aspects of the KMP discussion where we do better 
> need to understand the requirements. For example, I don't think we 
> have a good view about how KMP interacts with RP surrounding issues 
> like TCP-AO's state, the key tables draft, etc. It's quite clear that 
> Joe Touch and I have different ideas on some of this as an example.  I 
> think we should have those discussions. I think some consensus calls 
> will need to be made even.
> 
> However, I do not believe that having a full requirements document 
> will be necessary to converge on a solution. I'd rather focus on 
> technology than process.
> 
> So as an individual I'm not in favor of a KMP requirements document 
> nor am I in favor of blocking on its completion before moving forward 
> on KMP work.

---

From: Uma Chunduri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:01:25 -0400

Hi Sam,

    >>>I think there are aspects of the KMP discussion where we do better need to understand the requirements. 
    >>>For example, I don't think we have a good view about how KMP interacts with RP surrounding issues 
    >>>like TCP-AO's state, the key tables draft, etc. It's quite clear that Joe Touch and I have different 
    >>>ideas on some of this as an example.  I think we should have those discussions. I think some consensus 
    >>>calls will need to be made even.

For your particular comment above, I see you are talking about TCP-based RPs interaction. 
We updated the AO-KMP document with Gatekeeper module presented in Taipei. Could you spell
specific differences you have on this?

-- 
Uma C.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:57:40 -0400

>>>>> "Uma" == Uma Chunduri <[email-masked]> writes:

    Uma> I don't see any objection here.  On this note, I presume each
    Uma> protocol Gap analysis document should capture both PHASE1 and
    Uma> PHASE2 (KMP) requirements.  We did this for IS-IS
    Uma> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chunduri-karp-is-is-gap-analysis/)

That's not clear to me. For IS-IS it seems worth starting to think about
 the phase 2 issues as soon as possible because I think that IS-IS has
 complex phase 2 requirements compared to other RPs.

However I'd interpreted the gap analysis as a phase 1 effort.
For most protocols I'd hope there are few if any phase 2 issues.
If we're doing the right thing with the phase 1 work and the key tables,
then protocols should look much the same to the KMP.
Getting to that state is kind of a requirement for phase 1 outlined in
section 4 of threats-reqs.

---

From: Gregory Lebovitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:18:30 -0700

Quick point of order on Uma's comment:  it's a different subject than this
thread's original subject.

Uma, would you mind starting a new thread with the below and Sam's
response? This would leave the current thread focused on the parenthetical
text about KMP in the threat-reqs document.

Thanks,
Gregory

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Uma Chunduri <[email-masked]>wrote:

> need to understand the requirements.

-- 
----
IETF related email from
Gregory M. Lebovitz
Juniper Networks

---

From: Gregory Lebovitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:26:44 -0700

>    Brian> discussing the need for another requirements document

GL> +1.
GL> How's this for replacement text:
GL> CURRENT:

GL> "Work Phase 2", a framework and usage of a KMP, will be

GL> addressed in a future requirements document."

GL> NEW:

GL> "Work Phase 2", a framework and usage of a KMP,

GL> will be addressed in a future document(s)."

GL>

GL> This would occur in both the introduction and the 1st

GL> paragraph of section 4.

-- 
----
IETF related email from
Gregory M. Lebovitz

---

From: Uma Chunduri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 05:00:58 -0400

GL> NEW:

GL>

I guess, this is more clear now and also clarified in WG.

I hope you meant future protocol (group of protocols) gap

analysis/requirements document.

--

Uma C.