Hi Wes, We can definitely cleanup section 2.1 if the wg believes that the protocol configuration is outside the scope of i2rs. That would address both, Joel and Russ's concern as well.
Best Regards, Keyur From: "George, Wes" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:04:00 -0400 To: Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-keyupate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 I’ll echo Russ and Joel’s comments – we need to resolve the question of scope as it regards section 2 and existing BGP config vs focusing more tightly on topology-aware routing manipulation and identifying where we can do something to extend our current capabilities instead of simply replacing CLI with [yet another] something else. I think you could even make an argument that 2.2 makes a valid use case based on improvements to policy configuration that you could make with better topology knowledge, while the earlier sections might not be. I do understand that it might be entirely possible (or even better) to standardize on one interface for all BGP config manipulation if you’re already building one for topology-aware manipulation, but I’d view that as a happy side effect rather than a primary justification or goal, meaning that it would likely take a reduced form within the use cases draft. I think we need to address this *before* we adopt this as a WG item so that we can stay focused on the right scope. Thanks, Wes George From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:09 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-keyupate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 And I've lost the ability to spell - apparently. It's: draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-00<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases/> Alia On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Note that: draft-keyupdate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-00 has only the basic changes from IRS to I2RS compared to draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02. Feel free to review and comment on draft-keyupdate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-00 instead. Also - in this case, it is particularly important to have good conversation and discussion on the draft (unless you believe it is perfect) - to help guide the co-authors on how to improve the draft. Regards, Alia On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Please review draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 and comment on whether it should be adopted by I2RS. Detailed technical conversation is also most welcome. Authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02. Is so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). This WG call for adoption will complete on August 12. Thanks, Alia ________________________________ This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
