Re: IETF#90 DMM agenda update

Alternatively, you capture the deployment models and then identify the
solution gaps or solutions that meet the goals ...

> Sorry, I am familiar with those areas, they are not in Intarea :-).


RFC-6674; A solution driven by a deployment requirement.


Sri


On 7/22/14 9:36 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> Behcet,
>>
>> Check some of the documents in MPLS/Routing areas.
>
>Sorry, I am familiar with those areas, they are not in Intarea :-).
>
>>
>> DMM to most part is about deployment. Without bringing the deployment
>> aspects, documenting DMM solutions will be immature.
>
>I am looking at this Softwire document:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-04
>
>This document is looking into models on how MAP can be deployed on
>large-scale carrier networks.
>
>But the catch is that MAP which is the solution protocol is already
>defined in a different document by Softwire.
>
>So the deployment models IF NEEDED follows the solution selection process.
>
>May I suggest you to please come up with a draft including your ideas
>on the architecture and solution and have it discussed like any other
>protocol proposals? You may wish to add any deployment concerns there
>in your draft if you like.
>
>Also any architecture work will have implications on the solution and
>if they are done at the WG level that practically means that a lot of
>bias on the solutions which are already proposed will be imposed. I
>don't think that is what the WG wants to do.
>
>Regards,
>
>Behcet
>
>