Oops, sorry for the late response. This one ran afoul of my mail
filters for some reason. Comment inline:
On Sep 25, 2009, at 7:45 AM, OOGHE Sven wrote:
Ben,
Apologies for the late reply - I lost track of this email.
I think the requirement below comes a bit "after the fact" in the
sense
that it used to be relevant at a time when a protocol selection was
performed. Meanwhile the IETF has specified the ANCP protocol (based
on
GSMP), so this requirement has lost most of its relevance.
The very high level requirement would be:
"The ANCP MUST be designed in such a way that it is simple and
lightweight."
I agree that it's pretty hard to evaluate compliance or non-compliance
to such a requirement. So in that case, I propose to omit it.
I do not object to removing it.
Regards
Sven
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: woensdag 12 augustus 2009 17:35
To: OOGHE Sven
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Jari Arkko; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10
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
