Subject: [midcom] RE: Protocol Eval: 2.1.1 - COPS and Megaco: F -> P ?

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:50:55 -0500

Louis-N,

I do agree that this is an inconsistency remaining from when we defined the
new category.  I don't see an issue with changing both COPS and Megaco to P
for 2.1.1.  This would require no change to the text for either for 2.1.1.
Although, the conclusion will need to be updated; I'll post the proposed
text for that shortly. 

Since we would like this version of the document, that I'm in the midst of
completing edits on, to be ready for WGLC, I would like to propose that we
make this change.  However, as with the RSIP decisions that were made after
the original Aug 2nd cutoff, some of which were also this category (i.e.
hadn't been revisited since the new category was defined), I'd like to give
the WG time to provide any negative feedback on this proposal.  Since it's
after "normal" working hours for many time zones right now, I'll wait until
Monday morning to submit the updated document; that should still keep us on
schedule.  

Any concerns with this proposal should be posted to the mailing list by 9am
CST on Monday, August 12th.

Regards,
Mary. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hamer, Louis-Nicolas [WDLN2:AN22:EXCH] 
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:05 PM
To: Barnes, Mary [NGC:B602:EXCH]; midcom
Subject: Protocol Eval

Mary, All,

I've been through the comparison draft (a bit late, sorry) and I feel there
is an inconsistency
with regards to the COPS evaluation in requirement 2.1.1.
Currently, it is put as a F. But I believe a P would be much more
appropriate. I re-read the definitions
provided for F, P, P+, T and according to the definitions it is clear that P
is exactly the case for COPS in 2.1.1.
If you read the text for COPS in 2.1.1, it is said that only part of the
requirement is not met (the directionality)
but nothing prevents us from going around this problem by defining local
policies at the PEP. Yes, this would be
inconsistent with the COPS framework, but that is exactly what the
definition of P is.

I believe the same comment applies to Megaco.

The draft, as it stand, would be inconsistent since other protocols were
graded in-line with the F/P/T/P+ definitions,
while COPS and megaco (in 2.1.1) are clearly not.

Cheers,
L-N

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom