Subject: RE: [NSIS] What is the goal of the analysis draft?

From: "Georgios Karagiannis (ELN)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:13:34 +0100

Hi Melinda

Regarding the scalability term I see your point!
Maybe we could enlarge the scalability requirements 
with sentences, such as:
"when applicable must support state aggregation", 
"when applicable must support message aggregation", etc.

Is this acceptable to you?

Regarding section 5.5.5, I think that it emphasizes 
the need on achieving high network utilization and therefore,
it makes sense to have such a requirement.

Best Regards,
Georgios

-----Original Message-----
From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: woensdag 4 december 2002 19:24
To: Georgios Karagiannis (ELN)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [NSIS] What is the goal of the analysis draft? 

I think that it's pretty clear that "scalability" is not a
particularly meaningful term when it comes to laying out
requirements.  I would prefer to see things like "must
support message aggregation" than "should limit the load on
devices."   Maybe this needs to be thought of in terms of
what would happen if it were not included.  Do you think
that if section 5.5.5 were omitted, people designing a
protocol would then think "the heck with network
efficiency?"

Melinda
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:55:37 +0200 (EET)

Just a thought: aren't your suggestions related to the "blob" the
protocols is carrying? Thus, the protocol should support upper layer
object agregation (within single messages) and the upper layer objects
should be designed to allow for state aggregation at processing nodes.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 08:43:59 -0500

> Is this acceptable to you?

I like to see crisp requirements - ones that really will be
helpful to the protocol design/selection process - and I
think that if we're going to use phrases like "when
applicable" we need to add some text (in framework or
requirements) stating what "when applicable" means.  I also
like to think about what happens if you leave the
requirement out, or what happens if you leave the mitigating
words out.  So, what's the *real* difference between "must
support message aggregation" and "when applicable must
support message aggregation?"

> it makes sense to have such a requirement.

I'm unconvinced those are real requirements, but will defer
to the will of the group on that.

Melinda