Re: Inter Area Requirements - draft-boyle-tewg-interarea-reqts-01.txt

Hi Jim,

At 07:34 AM 12/17/2003 -0800, Jim Boyle wrote:

> >
> > As promised during the last IETF, we started to work on an ID collecting
> > SPs requirement which will be posted by the end of this week. Could we then
> > see whether we could merge the two drafts in order to make it a WG 
> document ?
> >
> > JP.
> >
>
>Jean Phillipe,
>
>I have to question your motive and approach here.  This draft was first
>put into the WG because you did not feel the need was there, and you did
>not want to delay inter-as draft.

No, correction: I proposed to have separate drafts, because of different 
degree of urgency, which is different, with the objectives of making quick 
progress on the Inter-AS TE requirements. I still do believe that this was 
the right approach.

>So I put this together back in June.
>In the following 6 months, you have not commented to the list on it's
>content (except to re-affirm that inter-as use does not necessitate
>inter-area),

Right

>  and your comment at the last WG meeting was that you thought
>the draft needed more SP feedback.

Right

>  I do not recall, nor do I see anything
>in the minutes, expressing your intent to put out a counter draft.

But surely you would remember that I sent you several emails during the 
last few weeks discussing such a draft as result of recent 
discussion/work  with several SPs.

>I've
>solicited and incorporated provider feedback, however I haven't seen a
>need to list a bunch of providers as authors, I don't believe that to be a
>useful procedure.

I do not see why the Service Providers should not participate to such a 
requirement draft. Frankly, I would even think that they are more capable 
than anyone else to drive a requirement draft. This is especially useful 
especially when they actually contributed to the draft content.

>Anyways, at this time I still am interested in hearing your feedback on my
>draft now that you have taken an interest in making sure that inter-area
>requirements are addressed.  I'm interested in feedback from all on
>the list as well.  However if you feel the need to put forward a
>counter-draft, I guess we can wait for that to occur, provide a round of
>feedback on it, and then look at merging or choosing one.  Not necessarily
>the most expedient path.  I'll leave it to Ed to decide what is the right
>process for making progress here, as well as to decide how tightly to
>couple this with inter-as requirements, in light of Adrian's
>suggestion to put forward requirements for both at the same time.
>
>Who knows, maybe a good time to revisit having both in one document - no?

I think that the WG has taken the decision (see the minutes) to proceed 
with separate drafts, right ? By the way, as you know, the inter-AS TE 
requirements draft is ready for last call, so this would just delay the 
process as you know.

You do not seem to see the approach here: the goal is really to be as 
productive and quick as possible. We are about to post an inter-area 
requirement draft which is nothing but the collection of several SPs 
requirements interested by inter-area TE.

Why could we not discuss this draft on the list, then the WG could decide 
to go with one or the other, or to merge ? On our side, we are very happy 
to quickly work with you.

Thanks.

JP.

>regards,
>
>Jim