I have the draft and support its adoption. Some comments: 1) ForCES model can support different levels of granularities. Yes, original intent was to do datapath control-southbound interfaces; but it is very usable in wide range of applications that desire a model. Example, if you attended the ForCES meeting you may have seen a demo where ForCES was used to model VMs doing arbitrary network functions where the ForCES was then used to orchestrate that infrastructure.
2) I think we may end up needing more clarity on the transport. Merely saying you'd use congestion-aware transport and spelling out desire for different levels of reliability is insufficient. An I2RS agent is a proxy; reliability and congestion control need to take into consideration those two requirements above the transport layer. 3) identity/roles It would be useful to specify some sample space of common practise. cheers, jamal On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > Please review draft-atlas-i2rs-architecture-01 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-atlas-i2rs-architecture-01? 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 > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
