----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <opsawg@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 11:58 AM > In the discussion of IETF consensus of this document and its position as a > BCP or otherwise, can I throw into the melting pot > draft-ietf-pce-manageability-requirements-06.txt Yes, a clear concise set of steps to follow when writing an I-D. The other comment I would make on the I-D under Last Call is on the first sentence of the abstract, to whit, " New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due consideration of functionality needed to operate and manage the protocols. " True, but not, I think, addressed by this document. There is plenty in this I-D for the I-D editor but little for the protocol designer. The latter might benefit from advice on how to structure elements of the PDUs and the interchange of PDUs; it may be difficult to know whether or not a network is functioning if there is no keepalive. (A comparable discussion surfaced recently on apps-discuss over the best way to encode lengths). I appreciate that this I-D does not set out to give such advice but think that someone reading the abstract might expect it to. Tom Petch > This particular I-D was developed within the PCE working group to apply only > in that working group. It covers similar topics, but is more focused on > ensuring that the protocols that are developed in PCE are manageable. > > The I-D has rough WG consensus (or did at the time I stopped being chair a > few months ago), but is not mandatory to implement within the WG. > > It is my opinion that those PCE I-Ds that have taken the draft on board have > produced better solutions that will be more successfully implemented and > deployed. > > Cheers, > Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf