Hi,
I think we are in agreement on all except the following:
On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:56 AM, OOGHE Sven wrote:
-- 4.3, first bullet:
Can you characterize how "limited"?
<Sven> Basically, the protocol must be designed to only require a
software upgrade, not a hardware upgrade. Perhaps the requirement
should
be reworded to the following:
"The ANCP MUST be simple and lightweight enough to allow an
implementation on Access Nodes that does not specifically require
additional control plane resources (e.g. additional CPU and memory
requirements). "
This still seems vague to me without some characterization of a
typical access node platform. I would be surprised if there are not a
broad range of device "size" for this sort of thing. I'm not looking
for precise hardware specs, but it would help to have some idea of the
typical range of CPU and memory resources you are thinking about.
<Sven> I'm not sure we should start writing about hardware
components /
memory sizes / CPU types in the draft. How about I write the
following:
"The ANCP MUST be simple and lightweight enough to allow an
implementation on Access Nodes to run without specifically requiring a
hardware upgrade"
How would you test compliance with a requirement like that?
Is there a way you can recast it to describe certain aspects of the
protocol itself? For example statefulness, encoding types, etc?
Another approach might be to make it even more general, and say the
protocol specification should discuss imbedded system implementation
considerations--which I suspect is close to the intent of the original
language.
Thanks!
Ben.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
