... > > I wonder how you define the "minimal modular-function-set". Isn't this > > already a > decision? > > The draft avoids defining function sets to be used. I assume different > > vendors will > provide > > different monolithic devices. > > There is two things that (in my view are/can be modular: > - the implementation > - the specification > > EVen if the specification is "modular", even then someone can chose to > implement it as a monolythic program/process I would think. And often that can > save memory usage.
Agree. ... > >> - for requirement 4.9.003 > >> is that more or less an "implementation" suggestion for requirement > >> 4.9.001 ?? > > > > You are right. It could be seen as such. > > However, there might be different reasons why people would want to reduce > > the > amount of traffic in the network. > > Congestion is one of them. One can also begin acting before congestion > > happens. > WDYT? > > > OK, maybe add a line of text about that then. IN my view it looked like > basically twice > the > same requirement. But if you define it this way, then it can be seen as a > different > requirement > may be. I think the requirements can be justified. Will add text. Cheers, Mehmet _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
