Re: [karp] threats-reqs: New requirements document for KMP

I don't see any objection here.

On this note, I presume each protocol Gap analysis document should capture both PHASE1 and PHASE2 (KMP) requirements. 
We did this for IS-IS (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chunduri-karp-is-is-gap-analysis/)

-- 
Uma C. 

-----Original Message-----
From: karp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:karp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Weis
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:17 PM
To: Sam Hartman
Cc: karp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [karp] threats-reqs: New requirements document for KMP

Hi Sam,

Thanks for your review. This is new text responding to a reviewer comment pointing out that this document only covers "PHASE 1" of the KARP Design Guide (RFC 6518). I believe the main contribution of the new text is to declare that "PHASE 2" is not being addressed in this I-D. The text you are objecting to is parenthetical text promising another requirements document. I propose removing this text and discussing the need for another requirements document independently.

Any objections from the authors or the WG?

Brian (Document shepherd hat on)

On Mar 15, 2012, at 8:37 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> 
> Hi.  I noticed language (not sure if it is new) in 04 of threats-reqs 
> that claims we'll be developing another requirements document related 
> to KMP requirements.
> 
> My personal opinion is that would be an unnecessary delay.  
> 
> I think there are aspects of the KMP discussion where we do better 
> need to understand the requirements. For example, I don't think we 
> have a good view about how KMP interacts with RP surrounding issues 
> like TCP-AO's state, the key tables draft, etc. It's quite clear that 
> Joe Touch and I have different ideas on some of this as an example.  I 
> think we should have those discussions. I think some consensus calls 
> will need to be made even.
> 
> However, I do not believe that having a full requirements document 
> will be necessary to converge on a solution. I'd rather focus on 
> technology than process.
> 
> So as an individual I'm not in favor of a KMP requirements document 
> nor am I in favor of blocking on its completion before moving forward 
> on KMP work.
> _______________________________________________
> karp mailing list
> karp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp

_______________________________________________
karp mailing list
karp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/karp