Hi Jamal, Thanks for your comments. Responses in-line.
Alia On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > [Alia] You have been talking about ForCES as being applicable for quite a while. It would be interesting to read a draft that does the compare/contrast for I2RS as well as the data-model for the RIB info model. There are also concerns about duplicating data models in different technologies and issues around tool-chain availability and automation. > 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. > [Alia] Yes, the transport needed depends on the communication pattern being used and that ties to the data-models as well. I think we need a protocol requirements draft that describes some of this in more detail. I have the idea that I2RS would have a default transport - and then some information streams may only be available over a different transport channel - or the client could request data across a different transport channel and so on. > 3) identity/roles > It would be useful to specify some sample space of common practise. > [Alia] Sure - I think this has to come out of the security space. I've heard suggestions about looking at the NetConf Access Control Model (RFC6536). I believe that Wes George was looking at some ideas and there were a number of security-related folks interested at the WG meeting. Regards, Alia > 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
