On 8/14/13 1:50 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Are you asking that the history data itself be readable with I2RS?  I
> really would not want to go there.  Asking "who created the current
> state, CLI or specific named I2RS client, might be reasonable.

I am suggesting the history (as well as current state) be readable via
I2RS itself.  In that manner it could be vendor-agnostic by which
traceability can be done.   Current state could be understand who
installed a route and when (Client identifier and timestamp).  But there
could be conditions where a Client had a route installed then removed
it.  If you wanted to correlate a period of bad performance, you would
like to be able to query I2RS to see what changed in a particular time
frame.

Joe

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 8/14/13 1:44 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
>> On 8/14/13 1:35 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree that requiring someyhing like transport mirroring would be
>>> unfortunate.
>>>
>>> I also don't think that we should be defining required syslog messages.
>>>
>>> But the interesting question is whether something reasonable could be
>>> done for vendor-agnostic traceability...
>>
>> Yes, that was my point.  This would be data that, in my mind, could be
>> queriable via I2RS.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>>
>>> Alia
>>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2013 1:29 PM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      These look like things outside of the scope of I2RS>  I would not
>>>      want to define message mirroring as part of the transport protocol
>>>      requirements, for example.
>>>
>>>      yours,
>>>      Joel
>>>
>>>      On 8/14/13 12:39 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>>
>>>          Hi Joe,
>>>
>>>          I certainly agree that keeping logs of the APIs done and their
>>>          results
>>>          or, perhaps, having the ability to mirror the requests and
>>>          responses to
>>>          a collector would be useful.
>>>
>>>          With CLI, I agree that this is frequently done with syslog
>>> today
>>>          - which
>>>          then necessitates vendor-specific code to scrape through.
>>>
>>>          What would be a meaningful accountability framework that
>>> would be
>>>          appropriate and, hopefully, not require vendor-specific
>>>          screen-scraping?
>>>
>>>          Completely off the top of my head, I can see the following
>>> ideas:
>>>              (a) mirror all (or a meaningful subset) messages in/out
>>> to a
>>>          collector that then stores/sorts/logs the information
>>>              (b) Define an accountability information model that
>>> defines what
>>>          should be stored and have it stored in the canonical form
>>>          required by
>>>          the selected data-model.  Perhaps mandate it be stored in a
>>> file for
>>>          acquisition?  Have the ability to read it?
>>>
>>>          and I'm sure that there are many others...
>>>
>>>          I do think this is an important area and it could use some good
>>>          discussion (and even a draft or a section to go into the
>>>          architecture).
>>>
>>>          Alia
>>>
>>>
>>>          On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke
>>>          <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>          <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>              On 8/14/13 12:11 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
>>>               > [Alia] I think that (1) belongs in the architecture. 
>>> I agree
>>>              that it is
>>>               > important - but I feel that the problem-statement
>>> part is
>>>          covered
>>>              in the
>>>               > Multi-Headed Control.
>>>               > (2) is mostly covered in "Secure Control".  I did add
>>> "Such
>>>               > communications must also have its integrity protected."
>>>          since we
>>>              hadn't
>>>               > mentioned integrity but just authentication and
>>>          authorization.
>>>               > For (3), I'm not sure what aspects specifically apply to
>>>          I2RS...  We
>>>               > have authentication and authorization and, in the
>>>          architecture,
>>>              tracking
>>>               > of state written.  What knobs or functionality are you
>>>          looking for in
>>>               > accounting?
>>>
>>>              I'll comment here, and I'm sure Carlos will chime in with
>>>          anything I
>>>              miss or if he sees things differently.
>>>
>>>              Coming from a services/support mindset, accountability from
>>>          a tracing
>>>              point of view is important.  I would like to see a history
>>>          of actions
>>>              performed, the client that performed them, when the
>>> actions were
>>>              performed (with very granular timestamps), and the
>>> result code.
>>>
>>>              Forgive me for using a vendor reference here (as an
>>>          example), but in
>>>              Cisco IOS we have the buffer of CLI commands executed
>>> and syslog
>>>              messages generated.  This buffer is very useful when it
>>>          comes to tracing
>>>              a crash back to potential triggers.  As we look to
>>>          incorporate our own
>>>              APIs, we want to provide the same kind of history log to
>>> try
>>>          and tie API
>>>              calls back to potential problems on the device.
>>>
>>>              With I2RS in particular, while crashes are certainly
>>>          possible, being
>>>              able to look back at operations and correlate problems like
>>>          packet loss,
>>>              service interruption, performance deviations, etc. will be
>>>          vital from a
>>>              troubleshooting standpoint.
>>>
>>>              Joe
>>>
>>>              --
>>>              Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
>>>              SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
>>>              Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
>>>              Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867 <tel:%2B1%20%28919%29%20392-2867>
>>>          <tel:%2B1%20%28919%29%20392-__2867>         c
>>>              i s c o  S y s t e m s
>>>              Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>          <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         
>>> ------------------------------__------------------------------__----------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>          _________________________________________________
>>>          i2rs mailing list
>>>          [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>>          https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/i2rs
>>>          <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> i2rs mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Joe Marcus Clarke, CCIE #5384,         |          |
SCJP, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, VCP        |||||      |||||
Distinguished Services Engineer ..:|||||||||::|||||||||:..
Phone: +1 (919) 392-2867         c i s c o  S y s t e m s
Email: [email protected]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to