Subject: Re: [midcom] Protocol Evaluation document template

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:39:10 -0600

Mary,

As I indicated in the MIDCOM session last Thursday, 3Com / CommWorks
will contribute to the evaluation of the RSIP protcol (RFCs 3102 ff.).
We would like to lead that evaluation, and will welcome anyone that
would like to work with us on it. If anyone else volunteers for this,
please have them contact me.

Thanks in advance,

Jim Renkel
Director, Advanced Technology & System Engineering
The CommWorks Corp., a 3Com company

"Mary Barnes"<[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 03/27/2002 12:52:10
PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   "'midcom @ietf.org'" <[email-masked]>
cc:
Subject:  [midcom] Protocol Evaluation document template

Hi all,

The protocol evaluation document template is now available at:
http://www.obsidian97.com/draft-midcom-protocol-eval-template.txt

I won't be submitting this to the archives as the intent would be to get
feedback such that the format for the initial protocol evaluation document
can be agreed.  Section 4 of this template contains the "mandatory" content
for the individual protocol evaluations.

There are a couple of format items for which I would like feedback, so that
we're not arguing these things once we actually get technical content:

1. In section 3, where the protocols are summarized against each of the
requirements, I've got a level 3 heading per requirement to match the
requirements document section 2.  The really pedantic question is whether I
should ensure that the protocol evaluation document is also section 2?

2. The second question related to section 3 is with regards to the actual
text for the level 3 headings, in section 3.1, I've started copying the
headings verbatim from the requirements document. In section 3.3, I've
abstract the requirement to a higher level description/tag.  Is there a
preference?  You loose a bit of information in the abstraction, BUT
including the text verbatim seems a bit too verbose, however, this does
make
this document fairly self contained.  So, if you have a preference, please
let me know now, so that we're not debating this nit later.

Also, there had been some discussion during the meeting to have some
additional comparison criteria that seemed to be geared towards more
general
protocol evaluation criteria.  I think it's a good idea for some of this to
be included in the individual documents, perhaps in the section
highlighting
the pros/cons of the protocol against the framework.  I've not included
such
things specifically in the template at this time, but will if someone has
specific suggestions for which we have WG concensus that these are good
criteria. The things I could think of with regards to simplicity (easy to
implement), efficiency (small code size, fast code, etc.) and other such
protocol "motherhood" requirements tend to be things for which there are
implementation tradeoffs and might end up being far more subjective than
the
comparison against the MIDCOM requirements.  However, I think this would be
a useful thing to discuss on this list prior to finalizing the proposed
document content and format.

Regards,
Mary H. Barnes
[email-masked]
972-684-5432
Wireless 817-703-4806

(See attached file: C.htm)

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:08:09 -0500

>please have them contact me.

By way of reminder, in the IETF the work is done by individual
contributors rather than by companies.  We'll need for the
individual who wants to work on the RSIP evaluation to identify
him/herself.

Many thanks,

Melinda

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