Subject: [midcom] Protocol Eval - 2.2.1 - RSIP Extensibility - P+ -> T ? ( was RE : Proposed changes to RSIP evaluation

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:03:02 -0500

Hi all,

Again, text deleted to isolate issue wrt 2.2.1 and again feedback is
requested ASAP; ideally by  COB on Tuesday, August 6th. 

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 10:42 PM
To: 'midcom'
Subject: Re: Proposed changes to RSIP evaluation (was RE: [midcom]
Comments on protocol evaluation draft
>
> 2.2.1 - The text currently supports the P+ score.
>

I scored this a T, which was subsequently lowered to P+, presumably
based on the explanation I gave. But if you look carefully at the text
I gave, it desribes how the extension mechanism might be used in a number
of different ways: defining new messages, parameters, and parameter
values; extending existing messages with additional parameters and
parameter values, which may be either new or existing; defining a new
version number if appropriate.

[MB] This was lowered to a P+ based upon WG mailing list feedback (from more
than one person, actually) on the -00 version of the document; that email
suggested further discussion, however, there was none.  So, per my summary
email for the changes for -01, I made this change (and received no response
to that email). For the earlier versions, the process we've been following
is that unless folks disagree with what's been posted, I make the proposed
change based upon mailing list discussion. Since, ideally, we'd like this
version to be ready for WGLC, I'm attempting to provide a complete
"heads-up" on the exact content of the new document, so there will be no
surprises.  

What I would propose is to open this again for mailing list discussion, to
see if anyone else is in support of changing this to a "T". 
[/MB]

But no backward compatible extension *to the extension mechanism itself*
is needed. If an extension to the extension mechanism were needed, then
the score should be P+ or P, depending on if the extension to the extension
mechanism were backward compatible or not. But since it's not even
needed, the score should revert to a T.

Additionally, I believe if you compare the facts on extensibility of RSIP
to the extensibilities of the other protocols, you would find them the
same, although they didn't go into as great a level of detail, and they
were scored a T. Perhaps if more specifics were given for the other
protocols as were for RSIP, they would also be scored a P or P+. :-)

Again, what I'm really looking for here is consistency: with the grading
system; and across the protocols.