Subject: Inter Area Requirements - draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:13:54 -0800 (PST)

Please review and comment, I also would like to resubmit this as a WG
document (incorporating wg feedback of course).

We have nothing covering these, and it would be good to send something in
this area forward to CCAMP along with the inter-as requirements.

I'll recuse myself on WG action on this (except as a member of the WG)
Ed, can you take care of letting me know if this can be resubmitted as
draft-ietf-tewg-interarea-reqts-00.txt.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt

thanks,

Jim

---

From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:26:06 -0500

Hi Jim,

>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt

As promised during the last IETF, we started to work on an ID collecting 
SPs requirement which will be posted by the end of this week. Could we then 
see whether we could merge the two drafts in order to make it a WG document ?

Thanks.

JP.

---

From: Jim Boyle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:34:28 -0800 (PST)

> see whether we could merge the two drafts in order to make it a WG document ?

Jean Phillipe,

I have to question your motive and approach here.  This draft was first
put into the WG because you did not feel the need was there, and you did
not want to delay inter-as draft.  So I put this together back in June.
In the following 6 months, you have not commented to the list on it's
content (except to re-affirm that inter-as use does not necessitate
inter-area), and your comment at the last WG meeting was that you thought
the draft needed more SP feedback. I do not recall, nor do I see anything
in the minutes, expressing your intent to put out a counter draft.  I've
solicited and incorporated provider feedback, however I haven't seen a
need to list a bunch of providers as authors, I don't believe that to be a
useful procedure.

Anyways, at this time I still am interested in hearing your feedback on my
draft now that you have taken an interest in making sure that inter-area
requirements are addressed.  I'm interested in feedback from all on
the list as well.  However if you feel the need to put forward a
counter-draft, I guess we can wait for that to occur, provide a round of
feedback on it, and then look at merging or choosing one.  Not necessarily
the most expedient path.  I'll leave it to Ed to decide what is the right
process for making progress here, as well as to decide how tightly to
couple this with inter-as requirements, in light of Adrian's
suggestion to put forward requirements for both at the same time.

Who knows, maybe a good time to revisit having both in one document - no?

regards,

Jim

---

From: Jean Philippe Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:16:20 -0500

Hi Jim,

At 07:34 AM 12/17/2003 -0800, Jim Boyle wrote:

>not want to delay inter-as draft.

No, correction: I proposed to have separate drafts, because of different 
degree of urgency, which is different, with the objectives of making quick 
progress on the Inter-AS TE requirements. I still do believe that this was 
the right approach.

>So I put this together back in June.
>inter-area),

Right

>  and your comment at the last WG meeting was that you thought
>the draft needed more SP feedback.

Right

>  I do not recall, nor do I see anything
>in the minutes, expressing your intent to put out a counter draft.

But surely you would remember that I sent you several emails during the 
last few weeks discussing such a draft as result of recent 
discussion/work  with several SPs.

>I've

I do not see why the Service Providers should not participate to such a 
requirement draft. Frankly, I would even think that they are more capable 
than anyone else to drive a requirement draft. This is especially useful 
especially when they actually contributed to the draft content.

>Who knows, maybe a good time to revisit having both in one document - no?

I think that the WG has taken the decision (see the minutes) to proceed 
with separate drafts, right ? By the way, as you know, the inter-AS TE 
requirements draft is ready for last call, so this would just delay the 
process as you know.

You do not seem to see the approach here: the goal is really to be as 
productive and quick as possible. We are about to post an inter-area 
requirement draft which is nothing but the collection of several SPs 
requirements interested by inter-area TE.

Why could we not discuss this draft on the list, then the WG could decide 
to go with one or the other, or to merge ? On our side, we are very happy 
to quickly work with you.

Thanks.

JP.