RE: [L1vpn] Proposed charter for L1VPN WG

["Hamid Ould-Brahim" <hbrahim at nortel.com>]

Dimitri,
 
My suggestion was more on the logistic side. More
likely requirement, framework, solutions/mechanism
will evolve (in terms of work) in parallel, 
if later on and as we progress an update is required
on the list of requirements that will impact only the 
mechanisms (like specific parameters) one needs 
not to go and update the framework document.
 
One can track the service requirements separately from
tracking the framework. I was actually talking about
service requirements (not specifically functional
requirements). And since we already have a set of
requirements why not start with that. Framework
and service requirements can progress first...
 
As I indicated before if providers think having
a separate service requirement draft is not required 
and it is okay to continue the req work within the framework
draft then I am fine with that. 
 
An example we can use is what has been done in 
l2vpn wg.
 
Hamid.
 
 the framework document has been used to determine the protocol work this
group is going to address, if two documents (requirements + framework) are
to be progressed in parallel it means that either

- you suggest we keep continuing work on functional requirements but then
one could question whether we agree on what to do in this working group ?
(note: protocol details will be worked out as part of the protocol work
anyway)

- or you do suggest that we close the requirements asap (but then what is
the purpose of it as we would be all in agreement ? here also details will
be worked out as part ofthe protocol work anyway) and the framework becomes
the document where terms, working assumptions and other models get
documented as suggested in the initial charter proposal

would you clarify your thought because i have some difficulties to
understand the logic behind the below reasoning ?

"Hamid Ould-Brahim" <hbrahim at nortel.com>
Sent by: rtg-dir-bounces at ietf.org
05/06/2005 09:39 AST

To: Tomonori TAKEDA <takeda.tomonori at lab.ntt.co.jp>, Alex Zinin
<zinin at psg.com>
cc: rtg-dir at ietf.org, l1vpn at ietf.org
bcc: 
Subject: RE: [L1vpn] Proposed charter for L1VPN WG




Tomonori,

>
> I think framework document can describe service requirements.
>
> Curret framework document (draft-takeda-l1vpn-framework-03) already
> contains service requirements. There may be some detailed
> points to be
> discussed, especially for the enhanced mode (sig+rtg model),
> as we see some
> discussion. (Framework document is describing a broad range
> of things, but
> not at the level of protocol requirements.) So, it may be
> necessary to
> narrow down the scope for the enhanced mode, which can be
> done through the
> mailing list, or if needed, through writing a separate draft.
> (I don't
> think we have an immediate need to write a separate draft.)
>

I do agree the framework draft covers the requirements and is inline
with ITU L1VPN work. An option that can be considered is to separate
the requirements from the framework in separate internet draft and
let the two drafts progress independently (from work point of view).
I assume at certain point solutions (and not the framework) would have
to be compared to the set of requirements listed.

Hamid.