Hi, > >> > 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.
OK, I understand your point. I think that the text describes the "routing system" which this working group will work on. I'm also pretty sure it describes every routing system that exists. > >> 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. I think the conversation I heard on the list was that people strongly wanted to consider the control plane as part of the routing system. I would also add that "data interface and control interface to RS" is subtly wrong. The word "to" is at odds with the intention. The intention is that these interfaces are part of the routing system, not interface to the routing system. > Please note that if you see that the above is not reasonable, the you > may ignore, it is just thoughts, No problem. Through discussion we get solutions. Adrian _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
