Hi, If an I2RS client wants to set up a tunnel between 2 routers (as a lame example), does it send 1 request to 1 I2RS agent or 2 requests, 1 to each I2RS agent/router? If 1 request, is the southbound protocol between the I2RS agent and at least 1 router proprietary or part of the standard?
I think this draft should be clear about what is in scope. It seems to say that the southbound protocol is out of scope. Andy On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Abdussalam Baryun < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
