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 > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
