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

["Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yakov,

On Apr 2, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> 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. 


well, yes and I don't think it's a bad idea at this stage.

s.


> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>