Progressing: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

Hi,

What I heard in Vancouver was that the ADs would not want to make it
mandatory to include a Manageability Considerations section in Routing
Area I-Ds.

Not sure I agree with the logic of this (which seemed to be that people
will ignore the requirement or will simply add pass-through text), but if
that is the conclusion of the ADs, then I'm cool.

Question:
Should we advance this work as a suggestion or BCP, or should we throw it
out?

I think that before making a decision, it would be sensible to (re-)read
the early sections of the draft.

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 11:42 AM
Subject: draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01.txt

> Hi,
>
> Following some mild interest two IETF's ago, we have updated this I-D.
>
> The chief change is some fleshing out of the guidance for the content of
> mandatory manageability sections, and the inclusion of an example from a
> current I-D.
>
> It seems to me that the Routing Area (under guidance of its ADs) now
needs
> to decide whether this is something we pursue and turn into a rule
> (completing all of the details), or whether we should abandon the idea.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
>
>

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion