Hi Alia, Thanks for reply. I wanted to understand the draft intention within Figure 1, so I agree that the I2RS WG has out of scope, but in the draft when it says out of scope of IRS, I think it is the IRS protocol (not WG from the Figure 1). If I understand the Figure 1, it shows that IRS Client interacts with the application, so it looks like there is scope, so I suggest that out-scope-interface to be one way drawed not two way (delet one arrow). Furthermore, I will review the draft, and give more comments.
Best Regards AB On 6/20/13, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi AB, > > It would be another type of interface to standardize and is neither the > I2RS client, agent or the specific communications between them. The > interaction between network application and i2rs client could be many > things and may be programming language dependent. In deciding what the > i2rs scope should be, we need to focus on having a feasible amount of work. > > > Do you have interest in standardizing this interface? > > There is discussion that a network application could be an i2rs client for > interacting with a routing element and then also serve as an i2rs agent for > other network applications to talk to. However, that is separate from the > interface between an i2rs client and the network application using it. > > Alia > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Abdussalam Baryun < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Alia, >> >> In figure 1, why is the interface between application and IRS client >> out of scope? >> >> AB >> >> On 6/20/13, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > (WG chair hat off) I am actively revising >> > draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement and would welcome any and all >> reasonable >> > comments on it this week. I think it is a good base for a WG draft. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Alia >> > >> > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
