Regarding draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-01 I have few minor comments:
1. Figure 1 sort of implies that I2RS client to I2RS Agent is always a point to point session. Is this intentional or accidental ? I can imagine bunch of I2RS clients feeding agends with pieces of required information which only putted together makes sense - is this out of scope as too complex ? Or is this what is called multi-headed control ? If so It's definition is not that clear. Does "multi-headed" just means number of independent clients feeding in async mode complete information chunks or is that I2RS agent can collect pieces of info for a given information and compiles the product itself. My question is for the latter mode. 2. > In addition to interfaces to the RIB layer, Are we always talking about global RIB or also RIB on line cards on distributed systems. While former is much easier the latter may help with scalability issues. 3. Pls change [I-D.gredler-idr-ls-distribution]) to draft-ietf-idr-ls-distribution 4. > For applications to have a feedback loop that includes awareness of > the relevant traffic, an application must be able to request the > measurement and timely, scalable reporting of data." Frankly I am not sure if I like and support the idea of mixing control plane and data plane reporting netflow like data on the same I2RS channel/session. Not questioning the need .. just questioning the approach :) 5. > While a few of these (e.g. link up/down) may be available via > MIB Notifications today, the full range is not - 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. So I2RS will also define a router's policy language which will allow for setting via I2RS protocol conditional behavior upon specific network events ? Will it ever ship complete ? Will it require RIB redesign by some vendors which today may not have all opaque info there ? It's awsome goal and very attractive, but to me it means that this one is a bit separate effort which make take much much longer to agreed in IETF on then plain I2RS remote control idea. Thx, R. On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all; > > Jeff and I would like to start the two week working group last call for > draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement. The document may be found here: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-02 > > The editors and authors are advised to try to resolve as many of the > comments as possible (on the mailing list) as they come in, but not to > post the new version of the draft until the wglc is closed and the > comments are resolved. > > This working group last call will end on Friday, 5/30/14 > > best, > -ed > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
