Subject: RE: Re: Performance requirements

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:16:37 -0600

George Tsirtsis [[email-masked]] wrote:
>Paal,
>
>I think this is a big rat hole. Especially the performance part and the idea
>of being explicit about it in the requirements. IETF is not really good at
>dealing with this things because it can make no assumptions about the link
>layers it is using and performance has a lot to do with that, as well as
>with the processing and memory capabilities of boxes. 
>

Spoken with the wisdom of an IETFer :) 
Could'nt agree more with your thoughts about the rat hole, George.

-Basavaraj

---

From: "Alper E. YEGIN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 15:39:09 -0800

> Could'nt agree more with your thoughts about the rat hole, George.

I agree 100%. Performance section of the req. draft is there to indicate
performance is a concern and protocol designers should pay attention to this
aspect. But setting explicit goals won't be productive..

alper