The MPLS WG Archive

["Gray, Eric" <egray@celoxnetworks.com>]

Shahram,

	We need to be a little less retentive about terms,
documents and ordering.

	A lot of the time in the IETF, work starts without 
a formal requirements document.  This is because some set
of people - nearly always including authors and often
including several others as well - believe they understand
the requirements well enough without formally documenting
them.  In many cases, a requirements statement of a sort 
is included in the draft abstract and/or introduction.

	Lately, there is a lot of preoccupation with the
need for formality.  A point I believe was made today is
that it is possible for a requirements document to proceed
in parallel and the results compared in an applicability
document.  This is quite reasonable.  

	While some people said something to the effect that -
in the event that they don't match up well - a mismatch is
an indication of failure on the part of the original draft
authors to develop something useful.  I think one could go
further and argue that the mismatch may be an indication
of future work that may be needed for subsequent versions
of the work already done.


Eric W. Gray
Systems Architect
Celox Networks, Inc.
egray@celoxnetworks.com
508 305 7214


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:02 AM
> To: 'mpls@uu.net'
> Subject: Requirements and solutions
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am very much troubled by a comment raised in MPLS meeting, that
> in the future the order of first requirements and then solution would
> quite often change and that hopefully it would not require any
> modification
> to the already approved solution.
> 
> This may be acceptable in occasional cases (may be MPLS-ping
> is one of those cases), but I am not sure it is a good idea
> to make this as a general rule.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Shahram
> 
> PS- Please not that my comment is not against MPLS-ping, rather about
> procedures.