On 6/23/15, 5:22 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
Stephane: I¹m looping everyone else back in..I know Brian had the same comment. >For the point #3, we had a comment from Alia on the list saying that we >needed to point to some existing solutions. > >We propose to change the text as follows : >BEFORE : >Link color information SHOULD be signalled in the IGP. How > signalling is done is out of scope of the document but it may be > useful to reuse existing admin-groups from traffic-engineering > extensions or link attributes extensions like in > [I-D.ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr]. >NEW TEXT : > Link color information SHOULD be signalled in the IGP in order to limit >configuration effort. e.g. > [I-D.ietf-ospf-prefix-link-attr], [RFC5305], [RFC3630] ... > >Does it work ? Honestly, both options point at the same thing: the suggestion (at least) of a solution. I am completely in favor of reusing technology/ideas/drafts if they will help solve the problem. My point is that this document is not specifying solutions, just requirements..if that is true, then don¹t point at the solutions. OTOH, if this document is to specify solutions, then lets do that. Having said all that, I can defer to Alia. However, please at least make it clear that the solutions you are pointing to are just that (pointers). In the text above I would rather keep the original text that clearly states that solutions are out of scope. The text in 6.2.4.4 doesn¹t explicitly say that the solutions are not in scope. Thanks! Alvaro. >3. In Section 6.2.4.2 the document talks about signaling color >information, it includes a set of requirements..and it reads ³How >signaling is done is out of scope of the document², but then you go on >and point to a specific solution. Even if there might be a high >certainty that the solution you point at is moving on in the process, is >good, should be used, etc.. I think this document would be better served >by just defining the requirements (specially if you¹re pointing at the >solution as out of scope). You do the same in 6.2.4.4. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
