Hi Alia,
First of all I agree that the draft if a good base for a WG document ;) I went
through the draft and I have a few comments:
- Also decoupling of life cycles (e.g. between an application and the network
functionality) is one problem which needs
to addressed. At the moment in many cases there is (still and
unfortunately) a close relationship between a (network)
service and the configuration of the network nodes. E.g. configuration
changes are necessary and even software updates
in order to support a certain service required by a product. With I2RS we
could make thos two things independent.
The "application" uses the well defined I2RS interface in order to
influence routing. No direct access to the nodes is
necessary. Thefore in ideal case the software life cycle of the software on
the node is independet of the software
life cyles of the application.
- Many nodes have an external interface to interact with the routing.
Nevertheless those are varying from vendor
to vendor which makes it difficult to integrate those into an existing
network. I2RS would give us the possibility
for easy interaction with a standardized interface. It reduces the time to
integrate new nodes.
- It should be mentioned that a solution needs "sufficient" security
mechanisms in order to avoid abuse and/or
unauthorized access to the network nodes through the I2RS interface.
best regards
Nic
________________________________
Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Alia
Atlas
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Juni 2013 06:52
An: [email protected]
Betreff: [i2rs] comments on draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement?
(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
