RE: [Mavs] Comments on the requirements draft Tue, 08 November 2005 09:13 UTC

Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZPXg-0004xI-TX; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:13:25 -0500
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZPXe-0004vt-4o for; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:13:22 -0500
Received: from (ietf-mx []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA23131 for <>; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 04:12:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZPnQ-0005Jh-JU for; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:29:40 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:13:12 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:13:11 +0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Mavs] Comments on the requirements draft
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:13:18 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Mavs] Comments on the requirements draft
Thread-Index: AcXjjy55lfCE9Fj6TU2uft6PzDxerQAXgChgABUV08A=
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2005 09:13:11.0792 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4744700:01C5E444]
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiprovider End-to-end VPN Services <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>


>  - The requirements as currently defined seem too general to be really
> useful. I wonder if there isn't a need to be clearer about specific
> requirements. This is likely to lead to more disagreements 
> perhaps, but
> hopefully these can be ironed out and useful progress will result.
> MH - Could you be more specific about what you mean by 'need 
> to be clearer':-) Do you mean 
> that the draft could do with more technical content, more 
> examples, more detailed explanations for 
> each requirement or something else?

Yes, all of the above :) Although thinking about this some more now, I
think what I'm missing is the piece that says, given requirement X,
these are the pieces of the puzzle that are missing, and these are the
pieces of the puzzle that need alteration, and that's probably not
appropriate for this document anyway.

>  - I'm not sure I agree with Dimitri that, "the document 
> introduces the
> notion of VPN integrator (refer to as MNE operator) atop of ISPs". I
> think the document *allows* for that, but it also clearly 
> alludes to the
> idea that a single service provider is engaged with service 
> provision to
> a cusomter and acts as MNE operator for the purposes of 
> delivering that
> service. To improve the document, I think the roles of the various
> entities and how they interact and are composed of/subsume each other
> needs to be spelled out much more clearly. In addition, it 
> might help to
> specify what we consider the 'default' or 'typical' 
> arrangement will be
> to help readers trying to get to grips with the terminology for the
> first time.
> MH - Agreed, although this is a tricky thing to get right as 
> it depends on which
> side of the fence you sit on. The role of a SI, VNO, NI in 
> relation to a customer via
> their 'dedicated' MNE can be substantially different to the 
> role of a NSP to a customer and a 'shared' MNE.
> Not sure if it is possible to have a default as to me both 
> roles are valid. Anyway, will try to 
> update the text with something simpler.

Yes, understood. Perhaps what is required is a couple of diagrams that
illustrate possible configurations. This would help to clarify the
terminology definitions as well.

> Good luck with the mini-BoF this this afternoon - I'll try to join via
> audiocast/jabber.

After I wrote that I realised that 1800 Vancouver is 0200 UK, so decided
to give it a miss! I'll check the audiocast archive later.
> MH - Thanks. Rest of your comments to be incorporated...



Mavs mailing list