In reviewing changes to CL framework suggested by Iftkhar, I found
some comments that indicate text to be moved to CL requirements.
-- remove this - add to CL-req in management section
The composite link functions provide component link fault
notification and composite link fault notification. Component
link fault notification MUST be sent to the management
plane. Composite link fault notification MUST be sent to
management plane and distribute via link state message in IGP.
-- remove this - add to CL-req in management section
Operator may want to perform an optimization function such as
load balance or energy saving over a composite link, which may
conduct some traffic moving from one component link to
another. The process MUST support locally and gracefully traffic
movement process among component links. The protocol that
facilitates this process between two composite link end points
is for further study.
I suggest we reword the original wording above and add the following
to CL requirements.
MR#+ Component link fault notification MUST be sent to the
management plane.
MR#+ Composite link fault notification MUST be sent to management
plane and distribute via link state message in IGP.
MR#+ An operator initiated optimization MUST be performed in a
minimally disruptive manner as described in Section [?]
Note: Section [?] is where ever we put the description of what we mean
by "minimally disruptive", "delay discontinuity", etc.
The sentence "The protocol that facilitates this process between two
composite link end points is for further study." is not needed in a
requirements document.
These requirements seem almost obvious. Significant event
notifications are always sent to the management plane, but stating
these explicitly doesn't hurt. If all load balance changes are to be
minimally disruptive as per FR#12, then operator initiated
optimization should be assumed to included, but this new requirement
could be perceived as covering a very significant management plane
initiated optimization.
Maybe the existing MR#6 could be more specific regarding what a
management plane initiated "optimization process" entails. It
currently reads "Management Plane SHOULD provide the means for an
operator to initiate an optimization process."
I suggest the first two go after the existing MR#5 and the third goes
between the existing MR#6 and MR#7. I also suggest that the existing
MR#6 be left as is unless someone volunteers a clarification.
Curtis
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
