The MPLS WG Archive

[Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>]

Jerry,

(still with my wg chair hat on)

yes I suggest that you elucidate the requirements further, and
ideally I would prefer a separate requirments doc, that we
could use to decide. Also, the requirements are very "bare boned", you
should put some meat on them.

What I would like to is a requirments doc that
1. describe the problem you want to solve
2. state the requirments in such a way that it is possible to verify
   whether they are met nor not, e.g. the and/or is hard to understand
   as requirment.

This doc would be the basis on which the wg reach consensus (go/no go)
and what the IESG use to ack/nak the charter extension.

We (wg chairs for ccamp and mpls and the ads) has just posted an ID
describing the process we think should be used to change/extend protocols
specified by the ccamp and mpls wgs.
<draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt> will show up shortly. Now, I'm
not going slam that process in your face, we need to reach consensus on
the process before we start using it :). And this reached us before the
process is in use. However, it would be possible for you to read and
understand how we are thinking.

/Loa

Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:

>Loa,
>
>
>>Question:
>>Are there any requirements doc on this - there is  a small 
>>section in the documents sent out, but it is hardly enough 
>>to take a decision.
>>
>
>Yes, Section 4.1 in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-e2e-vompls-hdr-compress-00.txt contains requirements.  In addition, these requirements were specified in slide 3 of the IETF-55/PWE3 presentation http://ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/index.html:
>
>a. need mechanism for end-to-end VoIP over MPLS  CE --> CE header compression
>(e.g., from CE1 --> PE1 --> P --> PE2 --> CE2), to provide for efficient voice transport.
>b. support various voice encoding (G.729, G.723.1, etc.).
>c. compress/decompress header using cRTP (RFC 2508) and/or 'simple' algorithm.
>d. operate in RFC2547 VPN context.
>e. scalable to very large number of CE --> CE flows.
>
>These additional requirements are added to the next (01) revision of the I-D.  Do you suggest any further elucidation of the requirements?
>
>
>>Suggestion:
>>It is my take that for the time being what should be 
>>discussed on the list is whether we want to take this 
>>up as a working group task, and whether we should ask 
>>ADs and IESG to extend our charter to cover this.
>>
>
>Agreed, that is what I was trying to suggest as well.
>
>Jerry
>
>
>