RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] 
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Boyle
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 11:13 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tewg-measure-06.txt
>
>
>
>After figuring out which sections had been moved where, I was able to
>coorelate the new draft up against my previous comments.
>
>http://ops.ietf.org/lists/te-wg/te-wg.2003/msg00256.html
>
>Most the comments still hold.
>
>My feeling is that we are not hitting the target on this, and 
>I think we
>should seriously consider just dropping this item :(
>
>From my comments you can see I at least was looking for some
>more tangible recomendations.  But truthfully, a lot of the 
>need for this
>is potentially tempered by a good MIB, which I think we have now.

	Well, there are at least a *few* available do to TE management.
*)  
I should also point out that there is good work going on in IPFX 
WG that can be leveraged for this as well.

>If there are folks that disagree, as to whether -06.txt hits the
>mark, or whether we should not give up, please do not hessitate to make
>your point known.  Or if you in general agree, or have any comments on
>this deliverable, or this draft, again, now is the time to make those
>comments.

	It seems to me that Bert's review comments (and yours) can be
decomposed
into two questions:

	1) Is the document still useful/valid (despite any editorial
		issues regarding how it is written)?  That is,
		does the construction of additional tools/techniques
within 
		other WGs (i.e.: IPFX) need to/can be driven by these TE

		measurement requirements, or our these requirements no
longer
		useful?

	2) Is the document simply not written to the
standards/expectations
		of the IESG and just needs to be reduced/clarified
further?

	--Tom




>thanks
>
>Jim
>
>