Subject: RE: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market saturationwithISMS(fwd))

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:52:59 -0800

Randy,

Thank you for this posting. Do you agree with me that for us to make
progress that we need to formally agree as a community as to what
requirements we are seeking to address? If you do, do you further agree
with me that my list should be supplemented by additional requirements
that I failed to note?

--Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market
saturationwithISMS(fwd))

Hi -

> From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:14 AM
> Subject: RE: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market saturation

> withISMS(fwd))
..
> 5) all three submitted I-Ds have addressed some of these requirements 
> (with one addressing all of them). It thus represents the Union of the

> requirements to which the I-Ds responded.
...

Not quite.  Some I-Ds addressed requirements not on your list.
Consequently, your list is not the union of the requirements. If it
were, the decision would have been relatively simple in favor of the one
proposal that attempts to address your list. Other requirements, e.g.,
those from the charter, make things less clear cut.

David Nelson is making an important point, and it's an issue the
evaluation team debated: whether your list should be treated as
consensus requirements or not.  Dave Perkins seems to believe the
evaluation team erred in considering those requirements, since they were
not spelled out in the WG charter.  Others clearly believe we should
have given them more weight.

> However, what I care about is having the WG creating a concrete list 
> of requirements TOGETHER rather than others necessarily adopt my list 
> as is. That is, what is needed is a common list WG-wide -- this should

> have

This certainly would have made evaluation easier.  I suspect that
getting WG-wide agreement on some of the items will not be easy, though
it ultimately has to be done, even if only ex post facto in the
definition of what the protocol does.

Randy

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

_______________________________________________
Isms mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isms

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:38:46 -0800

Hi -

I agree that there's value in nailing down as many of the requirements
as is practical.    I'd like to see as much of this done *before* Minneapolis
as possible; that way we can focus our face-time on the hard stuff.

In some cases, the decision might not be binary.  For example, supporting some
requirement might be nice, but not if it comes at the expense of satisfying some
other requirement.  Some of these "other" requirements may be long-standing
but oft-unspoken assumptions about the operation of management protocols,
such as the desire to keep the number of round-trips to a minimum, in order to
maximize the likelihood of completing operations in stressed networks.

I think all of the points from your Eric Fleischman's list, the charter,
and any "new" ones that folks think may have crept into the evaluation
are fair game for discussion.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:52 PM
Subject: RE: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market saturationwithISMS(fwd))

Randy,

--Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:01 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: WG Consensus? (was RE: [Isms] achieving market
saturationwithISMS(fwd))

Hi -

..

...

Randy