The MPLS WG Archive

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>]

At 11:20 AM 11/19/2002 -0500, Gray, Eric wrote:
>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.

         I totally agree.    Many people much smarter than
us have tried  to produce the grandest, most perfect solutions
from the start and failed.  IMHO, a mismatch is a reason to just
iterate  again to evolve the solution.

         --Tom



>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.

Success is relative; the more success, the more relatives. -Anonymous