[spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-01.txt - use cases vs requirements

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Wed, 02 April 2014 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <yakov@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E13F1A02D2 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zfPAlnuJPdv5 for <spring@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C931A024D for <spring@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail80-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.233) by VA3EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.7.40.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:28:45 +0000
Received: from mail80-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail80-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8171E600F2; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.11; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -1
X-BigFish: VPS-1(zf7Izzz1f42h2148h1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6h208chzzz31h2a8h839h944hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1ad9h1b0ah1b2fh224fh1fb3h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1dfeh1dffh1fe8h1ff5h2216h22d0h2336h2438h2461h2487h24d7h2516h2545h255eh25cch25f6h2605h262fh268bh26d3h1155h)
Received-SPF: softfail (mail80-va3: transitioning domain of juniper.net does not designate 66.129.239.11 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.129.239.11; envelope-from=yakov@juniper.net; helo=P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net ; SAC.jnpr.net ;
Received: from mail80-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail80-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1396459723895882_10991; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:28:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.239]) by mail80-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D300F2C008E; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:28:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.239.11) by VA3EHSMHS019.bigfish.com (10.7.99.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 17:28:43 +0000
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:28:42 -0700
Received: from juniper.net (sapphire.juniper.net [172.17.28.108]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id s32HSfV06087; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 10:28:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201404021728.s32HSfV06087@magenta.juniper.net>
To: sprevidi@cisco.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <86172.1396459721.1@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:28:41 -0700
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/9DGWLcNtSrRdeZ0AJxnNTrQYVrc
Cc: spring@ietf.org
Subject: [spring] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-01.txt - use cases vs requirements
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Stacked Tunnels for Source Routing \(STATUS\)." <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:28:55 -0000

Stefano,

The charter asks for "One or more documents describing SPRING use cases",
yet draft-previdi-spring-problem-statement-01 covers not just
use cases but the requirements as well. 

E.g., from section 5:

  The SPRING architecture should support traffic engineering,
  including:

   o  loose or strict options

   o  bandwidth admission control

   o  distributed vs. centralized model (PCE, SDN Controller)

   o  disjointness in dual-plane networks

   o  egress peering traffic engineering

   o  load-balancing among non-parallel links

   o  Limiting (scalable, preferably zero) per-service state and
      signaling on midpoint and tail-end routers.

   o  ECMP-awareness

   o  node resiliency property (i.e.: the traffic-engineering policy is
      not anchored to a specific core node whose failure could impact
      the service.

E.g., from section 5.1.1.1:

  The SPRING architecture should support this use case with the
  following requirements:

   o  Zero per-service state and signaling on midpoint and tail-end
      routers.

   o  ECMP-awareness.

   o  Node resiliency property: the traffic-engineering policy is not
      anchored to a specific core node whose failure could impact the
      service.

etc...

With all this in mind the authors should keep the scope of the
document to use cases, and remove all the text that talks about
requirements on SPRING.

Yakov.