Re: [lmap] New Version Notification for draft-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-criteria-00.txt

["Joan Luciani" <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Thank you for putting this document together.  Definitely gets one thinking
about these issues and think this will be a very insightful and helpful
document.  Some questions and comments below.

Thanks,
 -Joan


Specific Comments:

Section 2.0
Would it be possible to include a list of protocols that currently meet
these criteria?   Not necessarily an inclusive list, but something like:
Although this is not an complete list, examples of protocols that meet these
criteria are:...then list a few examples?


Section 2.1
The sentence which starts:  "Note that although..." is confusing to me.  It
seems to be saying, follow these criteria, but if it is not in 
the protocol, that's okay.   Is this what is meant?

CP-MUST-1 and CP-MUST-2, suggest saying "securely established", instead of
just "established".  The word "must" is used, and so was wondering if this
is "MUST" as outlined in section 1.1 (using key words)?


Section 2.2  Same comment as above with regard to the sentence that starts
"Note that although..."

Some of these CP-DIFF list items seem to be information that the protocol
needs to make available to the operator  (CP-DIFF-1, CP-DIFF-2, CP-DIFF-5).
Maybe these items (data) should be a sub-category?  (Would some
consideration about rate limit be appropriate?)

CP-DIFF-8 If possible, could examples be given?

CP-DIFF-11  Would like to see this mandatory.  To ask a related question is
there a benefit from not having version number?  If so, what is that
benefit?

CP-DIFF-12 is a subquestion of CP-DIFF-11.  Could the be combined with
CP-DIFF-11?  My understanding is that these protocols are standardized (or
on the standards track), doesn't the standards process provide a requirement
for versioning? Is that adequate for protocol numbering or is something else
wanted by LMAP?


Section 3.1
RP-MUST-1 and RP-MUST-2  Is this "must" or "MUST" as outlined in the key
words section?

RP-DIFF-4 Personally, would like to see compression mandatory depending on
the amount of data.  

RP-DIFF-5 Is this a MUST? ( as in MUST specify the bytes of overhead
required...)

RP-DIFF-6 What determines "widely used"?  I am not certain that I see this
as a criterion. While maybe a focus initially, do not think this needs to be
a criterion long-term (just my opinion) but yes, I think that LMAP would
like to focus on protocols that are widely used initially.

RP-DIFF-7 Who determines interoperability? Are folks envisioning independent
interoperability testing?

RP-DIFF-10 and RP-DIFF-11  same comments as for the CP-DIFF-11 and
CP-DIFF-12 above.

--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lmap [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan
> (Dan)
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:13 AM
> To: STARK, BARBARA H; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [lmap] New Version Notification for draft-starkcarey-lmap-
> protocol-criteria-00.txt
> 
> Thanks, Barbara and Tim!
> 
> All WG participants - please read and comment. Remember that this
> document aims to be a reference and help tool in the protocols selection
> process.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lmap [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA
> > H
> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 4:57 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [lmap] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-starkcarey-lmap- protocol-criteria-00.txt
> >
> > This is the draft that Tim Carey and I put together for LMAP protocol
> > selection criteria. It is taken from the slides we presented on the
> > December teleconference, with a few changes based on the discussion
> during that call.
> > Barbara
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 8:46 AM
> > To: STARK, BARBARA H; STARK, BARBARA H
> > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-
> > criteria-00.txt
> >
> >
> > A new version of I-D, draft-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-criteria-00.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Barbara Stark and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Name:		draft-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-criteria
> > Revision:	00
> > Title:		LMAP Protocol Selection Criteria
> > Document date:	2015-01-15
> > Group:		Individual Submission
> > Pages:		6
> > URL:            https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> > 3A__www.ietf.org_internet-2Ddrafts_draft-2Dstarkcarey-2Dlmap-
> > 2Dprotocol-2Dcriteria-
> >
> 2D00.txt&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQ
> >
> zvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=XIN9C1RI85JcLlc_HK4JmbtSpeNxLXsPfKInZ
> > 3TM5DE&s=iICyiTfARFWNLQ0nYcKm8ZPu566aGDwcFFnLgS_IG64&e=
> > Status:         https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> > 3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dstarkcarey-2Dlmap-2Dprotocol-
> >
> 2Dcriteria_&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJ
> >
> fQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=XIN9C1RI85JcLlc_HK4JmbtSpeNxLXsPfKI
> > nZ3TM5DE&s=2gt4tnmgmwjx4-w3530xDA0goc1qR8bCfyBfR2e8lbw&e=
> > Htmlized:       https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
> > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dstarkcarey-2Dlmap-2Dprotocol-2Dcriteri
> > a-
> 2D00&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvls
> >
> iLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=XIN9C1RI85JcLlc_HK4JmbtSpeNxLXsPfKInZ3T
> > M5DE&s=V31dBlNm5qEW5oYktaORSpaT_-hXOvAf8uyD4S1KJLU&e=
> >
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    This draft identifies criteria to be used in evaluating and selecting
> >    Control and Reporting Protocols described by
> >    [I-D.ietf-lmap-framework].
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > The IETF Secretariat
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lmap mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lmap&d=AwICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl
> >
> 1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=XIN9C1
> >
> RI85JcLlc_HK4JmbtSpeNxLXsPfKInZ3TM5DE&s=EIGzvXolZ7jKxm1NoOMSbML
> > AFc0FaDbViOExWfdxwNU&e=
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap