I beleive if any thing not shown then they are not allowed by I2RS, if it is shown then it is the way the I2RS will work to solve the problem. So I will understand that I2RS client does not talk to NE but only to the agent, that is why I suggest that we don't show any sign that the client can talk to any other as long it is out of scope. Therefore the drawing methodology (figure 1) is : (if out of scope of the protocol then should not be shown, and if future work of protocol it may be shown).
AB On 6/22/13, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I just re-read the framework and problem statement drafts. > Only 1 minor issue in the problem statement draft: > > The 'I2RS Agent' is shown as a single box in figure 1. > > 1) Does this mean the protocol between the "broker" and the > NEs is proprietary, or just not shown? > > 2) Does this mean that an I2RS Client never talks directly to an NE > or does it mean all I2RS Agent functionality is available on all NEs? > > Nit, sec. 6, para 4: > - the lack of standard data models is the problem of the NETMOD WG, > not really the NETCONF protocol. > - s/may help define needed/may require help defining needed/ > > > Andy > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
