RE: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[e-mail]>]

Some members of the IESG feel that it would be best to use
RFC2119 language (e.g. MUST, SHOULD etc) to express the
requirements. So... could the author and WG consider such
when the other comments are being addressed.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: woensdag 16 april 2003 15:30
> To: Ccamp-wg (E-mail)
> Subject: FW: draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt
> 
> 
> Please consider these comments and let me know if they
> wrrant some additional text in the ID. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> >*****  o Tracing Requirements for Generic Tunnels (None)
> >            <draft-ietf-ccamp-tracereq-01.txt>
> >         Token: Wijnen, Bert
> >         Note: New revision Addresses comments.
> >         Now on IESG agenda for April 17th
> >         Responsible: Bert
> 
> 1. this document looks like it might be the union of all the
>    "i want it to do <foo>" requests. an important part of 
>    requirements documents is knowing what to not require.
>    do they have any?
> 2. i am concerned about the security stuff that they've buried in 
>    their requirements. nothing definite. it seems unwieldy. but
>    then, so many security things do...
> 3. section 4.1 and 4.2 seem to be worded with a particular
>    implementation in mind. requirements documents ought not
>    specify solutions (eg, 4.2 talks about udp, why can't i use 
>    icmp?)
> 4. justification of requirements might be nice.
> 
>