Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.2 RSIP - proposal to change score and text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 22:35:58 -0500

Melinda,

I share your hope that protocols would be evaluated as defined, not as
extended. But the consensus was to include a P+ score that is given
based on the protocol after extension. I think that score hides valuable
information. Maybe that information is available in the evaluation
comments, but I would have liked to see it reflected in the score.

The consensus was to include P+, so I am going along with that and
trying to get consistent application of it.

Jim

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 08/05/2002 05:49:38 PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   James Renkel/MW/US/3Com
cc:   midcom <[email-masked]>
Subject:  Re: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.2 RSIP - proposal to change score
      and text

> RSIP is currently scored a P on this requirement when it should, in
> my opinion, clearly be a P+ or T, depending on whether more actions than
> permit are required by the semantics: if more actions than permit are
> required, they can be supported with backward compatibility by the
addition
> of an optional action parameter in appropriate requests, with the default
> value of the parameter being permit if it is omitted.

I'm hoping that the protocols can be evaluated on the basis
of their current defined state, rather than what they might
look like after being extended.

Melinda

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

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