Subject: [Roll] Complexity [Was: AD review of draft-ietf-roll-routing-metric]

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 20:04:25 +0000

Hi David,
 
My concern was with the complexity introduced by optionality, not by the
complexity of the features per se (although I did identify a couple of flavors
of LQL I don't believe have any benefit).
 
It seems to me that the draft does not provide an unnaturally large number of
metrics/constraints. It is really up to the WG to decide whether they want those
metrics available, and that is probably a function of the type of network that
is being built (compare SPF with TE constrained in MPLS).
 
A compromise solution might be (as I suggest in my other email) to provide
"profiles" that are common subsets so that people know what they are
implementing/buying/deploying. This is the approach taken in the MIB world where
"compliance statements" tell people what functions to expect from a particular
claim of compliance.
 
Cheers,
Adrian
 
From: David Culler [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 07 December 2010 18:22
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Roll] AD review of draft-ietf-roll-routing-metric
 
Adrian,
   Thanks very much for your efforts here.  It looks like the responses address
the specific issues, but I'd like to know if you feel that they address the
larger issue of unnecessary complexity.  This has been a pervasive concern with
this particular piece of work.  We have managed to contain it a good bit and we
have eliminated the fluff of earlier versions.