Subject: Re: [Rserpool] requirements status

From: "Lyndon Ong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 13:59:05 -0700

Eliot,

We agreed in Minneapolis to split off the requirements from the architecture and the comparison sections in order to keep the requirements protocol-independent.  It sounds like you are supporting this split, but have concerns still with some of the text in the requirements draft.

Why don't we use the Last Call process to focus on this text and iron out remaining problems with it?  I don't think that there are issues where we really disagree on major points, more perhaps some areas where the text does not quite express what we think.

A lot of the email discussion will eventually go into the comparisons draft, when John has the bandwidth to have another look at this.

Cheers,

Lyndon
 
--

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 09:55:00   Eliot Lear wrote:
>[Catching up from vacation]
>
>Lyndon Ong wrote:
>> Based on the comments so far, I see no reason to postpone the Last Call
>> on the requirements document.  Unless someone sees a major problem, I
>> propose that we start WG Last Call on the requirements beginning next
>> Monday.
>
>Lyndon,
>
>To be frank, I am having a real problem with the document split already. I
>want to see a good architectural fit between this mechanism, DNS, and
>other Internet mechanisms.  I can't get a feel for that right now because
>we don't have the document that explains what we need that DNS don't got. 
>There's a lot of text on this mailing list that has some good indicators,
>but that's not in Michael's draft.  
>
>Don't get me wrong, by the way.  I *LIKE* the idea that the solution
>discussion was moved out of the draft, and I think his requirements draft
>is useful.  However, it too needs more work.  For instance, in section 2.3
>I'd rather simply the multicast discussion to something like "the
>mechanism must operate across intradomain multicast boundaries", since I
>believe it IS reasonable at this day and age to operate a PIM sparse-mode
>network in a reliable way.  It's the interdomain part that people have
>problems with.
>
>Furthermore, 2.4 needs to be reconsidered as well.  Because we are
>offering a network service that is not really present today there is no
>perfect bridge between any existing mechanism, with the possible exception
>of IP anycast.  Is this really the direction you want to go?  Now I think
>2.10 pretty much says what I'm saying, so the text needs to be clarified.
>
>In section 2.5, we are bounding the problem, but perhaps to the point
>where normal DNS would do the job.  See Bernard's previous EMails.
>
>Regards,
>--
>Eliot Lear
>[email-masked]
>

Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com

_______________________________________________
rserpool mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rserpool