Jeff, Alia answered my concerns and am fine with the draft for WGLC and RFC
Dean On Jun 6, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Juergen, Please see my responses/resolutions below. I'll be submitting a version -03 with these changes (plus a couple wording changes from Dean). Thanks for the review! Alia On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 04:29:38PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement/ > Have you read the problem statement draft? > Do you think it is ready to be published as a RFC? > (If no, please respond to the list with issues.) I have read <draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-01.txt> (and the diff for -02). I have a couple of comments that I like to see addressed, some are purely editorial (and may be left to the RFC editor), others are I think clarification or suggestions for more appropriate wordings. - Please make sure the central figure fits on a single page since a page break in the middle is kind of disturbing. - What is a "_clear_ transfer syntax"? Perhaps simply remove 'clear'. Replaced "clear" with "concise"... - What are "_semantic-aware_ data models"? Either remove _semantic-aware_ or define it. Replaced with "meaningful" - s/MIBs/MIB modules/ Done - s/MIB Notifications/MIB notifications/ Done - This is not quite correct: [...] nor is there the standardized ability to set up the router to trigger different actions upon an event's occurrence so that a rapid reaction can be accomplished. I believe the MIB modules that were created by the Distributed Manaement (DISMAN) working group provide this functionality. You may want to rephrase this so that it says that such MIB modules were not successfully deployed or something like that, but it is not correct that there are no standardized MIB modules for this. - I find some of the high throughput "desired aspect" of the protocol problematic, e.g. "should be able to handle a considerable number of operations per second above what basic Netconf or a propretiary CLI can". I find this ill defined. I see this got fixed in -02 which just got posted and I appreciate that fix. Replaced with "While a few of these (e.g. link up/down) may be available via MIB notifications today, the full range is not - nor has there been successfully deployed the standardized ability to set up the router to trigger different actions upon an event's occurrence so that a rapid reaction can be accomplished. " - s/NetConf/NETCONF/ - The NETCONF community was forced to follow a sequential process and it took us time to create YANG after NETCONF and we are now getting core data models out (some published, some in the RFC queue, some in the hands of the IESG). Hence I like the following to be rephrased: OLD: However, the lack of standard data models have hampered the adoption of NetConf. NEW: However, the initial lack of standard data models has hampered early adoption of NETCONF. Done. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587<tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203587> Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103<tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203103> <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ 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
