Subject: CL requirements - management requirements from CL framework

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:38:09 -0400

In reviewing changes to CL framework suggested by Iftkhar, I found
some comments that indicate text to be moved to CL requirements.

   -- remove this - add to CL-req in management section

      The composite link functions provide component link fault
      notification and composite link fault notification. Component
      link fault notification MUST be sent to the management
      plane. Composite link fault notification MUST be sent to
      management plane and distribute via link state message in IGP.

   -- remove this - add to CL-req in management section

      Operator may want to perform an optimization function such as
      load balance or energy saving over a composite link, which may
      conduct some traffic moving from one component link to
      another. The process MUST support locally and gracefully traffic
      movement process among component links. The protocol that
      facilitates this process between two composite link end points
      is for further study.

I suggest we reword the original wording above and add the following
to CL requirements.

   MR#+  Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the
   	 management plane.

   MR#+  Composite link fault notification MUST be sent to management
   	 plane and distribute via link state message in IGP.

   MR#+  An operator initiated optimization MUST be performed in a
   	 minimally disruptive manner as described in Section [?]

Note: Section [?] is where ever we put the description of what we mean
by "minimally disruptive", "delay discontinuity", etc.

The sentence "The protocol that facilitates this process between two
composite link end points is for further study." is not needed in a
requirements document.

These requirements seem almost obvious.  Significant event
notifications are always sent to the management plane, but stating
these explicitly doesn't hurt.  If all load balance changes are to be
minimally disruptive as per FR#12, then operator initiated
optimization should be assumed to included, but this new requirement
could be perceived as covering a very significant management plane
initiated optimization.

Maybe the existing MR#6 could be more specific regarding what a
management plane initiated "optimization process" entails.  It
currently reads "Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an
operator to initiate an optimization process."

I suggest the first two go after the existing MR#5 and the third goes
between the existing MR#6 and MR#7.  I also suggest that the existing
MR#6 be left as is unless someone volunteers a clarification.

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:25:49 -0400

RTGWG,

There was no comment on this.  The three management requirements below
were added.

Section [?] in the text below is replaced with "Section 4.3" in the
txt version of the draft.

No one so far has offerred a clarification to what was MR#6 which
currently reads "Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an
operator to initiate an optimization process."

Curtis

In message <[email-masked]>