Re: [OPSAWG] Call for reviewers of draft-ersue-opsawg-coman-*

["Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

... 
> > I wonder how you define the "minimal modular-function-set". Isn't this already a
> decision?
> > The draft avoids defining function sets to be used. I assume different vendors will
> provide
> > different monolithic devices.
> 
> There is two things that (in my view are/can be modular:
> - the implementation
> - the specification
> 
> EVen if the specification is "modular", even then someone can chose to
> implement it as a monolythic program/process I would think. And often that can
> save memory usage.

Agree.
 
... 
> >> - for requirement 4.9.003
> >>     is that more or less an "implementation" suggestion for requirement 4.9.001 ??
> >
> > You are right. It could be seen as such.
> > However, there might be different reasons why people would want to reduce the
> amount of traffic in the network.
> > Congestion is one of them. One can also begin acting before congestion happens.
> WDYT?
> >
> OK, maybe add a line of text about that then. IN my view it looked like basically twice
> the
> same requirement. But if you define it this way, then it can be seen as a different
> requirement
> may be.

I think the requirements can be justified. Will add text. 

Cheers,
Mehmet