RTGWG, There was no comment on this. The three management requirements below were added.
Section [?] in the text below is replaced with "Section 4.3" in the txt version of the draft. No one so far has offerred a clarification to what was MR#6 which currently reads "Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an operator to initiate an optimization process." Curtis In message <[email protected]> Curtis Villamizar writes: > > In reviewing changes to CL framework suggested by Iftkhar, I found > some comments that indicate text to be moved to CL requirements. > > -- remove this - add to CL-req in management section > > The composite link functions provide component link fault > notification and composite link fault notification. Component > link fault notification MUST be sent to the management > plane. Composite link fault notification MUST be sent to > management plane and distribute via link state message in IGP. > > -- remove this - add to CL-req in management section > > Operator may want to perform an optimization function such as > load balance or energy saving over a composite link, which may > conduct some traffic moving from one component link to > another. The process MUST support locally and gracefully traffic > movement process among component links. The protocol that > facilitates this process between two composite link end points > is for further study. > > I suggest we reword the original wording above and add the following > to CL requirements. > > MR#+ Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the > management plane. > > MR#+ Composite link fault notification MUST be sent to management > plane and distribute via link state message in IGP. > > MR#+ An operator initiated optimization MUST be performed in a > minimally disruptive manner as described in Section [?] > > Note: Section [?] is where ever we put the description of what we mean > by "minimally disruptive", "delay discontinuity", etc. > > The sentence "The protocol that facilitates this process between two > composite link end points is for further study." is not needed in a > requirements document. > > These requirements seem almost obvious. Significant event > notifications are always sent to the management plane, but stating > these explicitly doesn't hurt. If all load balance changes are to be > minimally disruptive as per FR#12, then operator initiated > optimization should be assumed to included, but this new requirement > could be perceived as covering a very significant management plane > initiated optimization. > > Maybe the existing MR#6 could be more specific regarding what a > management plane initiated "optimization process" entails. It > currently reads "Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an > operator to initiate an optimization process." > > I suggest the first two go after the existing MR#5 and the third goes > between the existing MR#6 and MR#7. I also suggest that the existing > MR#6 be left as is unless someone volunteers a clarification. > > Curtis _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
