Hi Adrian, I agree that my input/suggestions for the charter are not necessary, my idea was to just separate if possible the definitions of RS and the I2RS to make it flexible until we agree on such architectures. However, some inline;
On 12/23/12, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > > Thanks for contributing. > >> > A routing system is all or part of a routing network. A part of a >> > routing >> > network may be a single router or a collection of routers. The >> > routing >> > system may be further divided to be an interface over which data >>> traffic is forwarded, or a collection of such interfaces. >> >> AB>Suggest Amend> A routing system SHOULD be in all or part of the >> routing network. > > Not sure what you mean. > The use of upper case here would have no meaning. > How is "should be in" more useful that "is"? In the charter of WG it is better we don't define the routing systems. When using "is" we are somehow defining the routing system, but using SHOULD, MUST and MAY, make clear pecifications direction with the interfaces to these systems. The "is" seems like "must", which I don't prefer in this stage. > >> AB> Amend to> The routing system may be further divided by an >> interface over which data traffic can be forwarded, or by a collection >> of such interfaces. > > You have s/to be/by/ > Doesn't "by" imply that it is the interface that does the dividing? > I don't think that language works. > >> > I2RS facilitates real-time or event driven interaction with the routing >> > system through a collection of control or management interfaces. >> > These allow information, policies, and operational parameters to be >> > injected into and retrieved (as read or notification) from the routing >> > system while retaining data consistency and coherency across the >> > routers and routing infrastructure, and between multiple interactions >> > with the routing system. >> >> AB> replace: between with among > > Fine. > >> > 2. Include Control Plane Protocols >> > This got immediate support and leads to: >> >> I think If included we need to define the interface within this plane, >> separating I2RS protocol and the control operation protocol. >> >> > == >> > A routing system is all or part of a routing network. A part of a >> > routing >> > network may be a single router or a collection of routers. The >> > routing >> > system may be further divided to be an interface over which data >> > traffic is forwarded, or a collection of such interfaces. The routing >> > system also includes the control plane protocols that operate the >> > routers. >> >> AB> Amend> The routing system also includes the operational protocols >> that are within control plane that operate the routers. > > I think an "operational protocol that is within the control plane" is a > "control > plane protocol." I agree, but I prefer to avoid the definition of routing system as some prefered to avoid separating data and control interface to RS. Also we still will discuss the I2RS architecture in the WG. I just as not mentioning data interface and control interface to RS as types, as we may not have to define control plane in the routing system. Therefore, my concerns is if we mention the data and control interface then it is ok to mention the control plane as must be included in the routing system. Please note that if you see that the above is not reasonable, the you may ignore, it is just thoughts, Regards AB _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
