Subject: [midcom] Protocol Eval: 2.2.3 - RSIP - F -> P or P+ ( was RE: Proposed cha nges to RSIP evaluation ...

From: "Mary Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:05:22 -0500

Hi all,

One note on this one is that Jim's original email ranking from which this
thread started was incorrect in that RSIP was indicated to be Failing this
requirement, although his category tag was correct: 3.  At a minimum, I
would agree that it should be changed to a P.  

Per my original email response to Jim, it needs further substantiation for
P+ and in particular, like 2.2.2, I think it can only be changed to a P+ if
we get WG concensus on changing 2.2.1 (Extensibility) to T for RSIP.  Again,
this is open for discussion.  

To summarize, if no feedback is received by COB August 6th, then I propose
to change 2.2.3 to P for RSIP.  If we get agreement that 2.2.1 is a T, then
I think we can agree to change 2.2.3 to P+, unless I get WG feedback to the
contrary. 

Regards,
Mary. 

P.S. And this is the last of my postings in response to Jim's email, so let
me know if you find that I've missed responding individually to something. 

-----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

----text deleted -----

>
> 2.2.2 - I think a P+ needs additional text to substantiate that this
> would be a compatible extension of the protocol (OR we need some text
> upfront in the RSIP overview describing the extensibility mechanisms
> defined by RSIP)
> 2.2.3 - ditto
>

----text deleted -----

As to 2.2.3, ruleset groups, they can be added compatibly by adding a
ruleset identifier parameter to the appropriate RSIP request and
response messages. If new operations on rulesets are required beyond
those provided by the existing RSIP requests and responses, they can be
added compatibly.

As to a fuller explanation of the RSIP extension mechanism, I believe
that text is already there under requirement 2.2.1. If necessary, maybe
that should be moved to the overview (Or a pointer from the overview to
the 2.2.1 text could be added.). If we need a fuller or different
explanation, let me know and I'll provide it.

---Remaining text deleted ---

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