Re: [mpls] New Version Notification for draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk-02.txt

[Tony Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi Haoyu,

> Thanks for the explanation. I think such explanation is exactly what’s needed in the document for clarification.
>  
> I’m glad it helps.  Again, the framework document is NOT supposed to be an analysis document.
>  
> [HS] The document should remove ambiguity  so I think the description is necessary.


The description is already there and is unambiguous. I fail to see how we can add to the document without referencing specific solutions.

> Doesn’t this imply a specific solution?
>  
> No. We currently have two solutions that would already fall into that class.
>  
> [HS] Sorry I don’t follow your logic here.


You asked if the document was specifying only a single solution.  I pointed out that the class of solutions that you specify already has two proposed solutions. Ergo, it cannot be a single solution.


> We have agreed the principle that “The Framework document must be solution independent”.


Agreed.  Within the bounds of reasonable and workable solutions, yes.


> It doesn’t matter how many solution proposals have already fall into the class.



That’s exactly the concern that you raised.



> What’s matter is that it’s possible that a new proposal would fall outside of the class. Would that be automatically excluded due to the framework document?


Not necessarily. If someone has some bright idea that falls outside of the framework that is both reasonable and rational, then the framework may be generalized to include it.  This is exactly why I sent a question to the mailing list.  One that you have not responded to, AFAICT.  I’m explicitly proposing to generalize the framework to cover your proposal. Or, if you prefer, we can argue about it, indefinitely.

Tony