A document clearly stating the reqs would help me understand the need I2RS is addressing. I would suggest writing the reqs info doc first
Jim Uttaro -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of t.petch Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:13 AM To: Jeffrey Haas; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux) Architecture After reading this, I struggle to see the point of I2RS:-( As was said two months ago, "And the basic premise of I2RS is that there are requirements for the work that were not addressed properly by the existing configuration protocols. " but reading Architecture, the examples I see are ones that seem to fall within the remit of NETCONF (being config) as and when a suitable data model has been defined (e.g. for OSPF or BGP). Initially I had thought of several things that I2RS might do but these have been ruled out, either on the list or in this I-D, so I am left wondering what it is that I2RS will do that NETCONF potentially cannot. I do find the I-D quite hard to follow as the terminology seems inconsistent - the word 'state' is much used but it is unclear to me if the term can be given a single definition in this context; and even if it can, the word seems an unfortunate choice since the IETF Ops Area has given it a precise definition which is at odds with its use here. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Haas" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2014 9:29 PM > Working Group, > > The original deadline for comments on WGLC for the problem statement and > architecture drafts of May 30 has passed with no comment whatsoever. > > While we all realize that there's a bit of exhaustion going on with regard > to these drafts, they are a bit of process we simply must get done in order > to fully move forward with our agenda of putting together data models. > > We are *NOT* going to hold that work up further - it is clear that there is > consenus to start making that progress. > > To assist us with putting this work behind us, please respond to the > following questions: > > 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.) > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture/ > Have you read the architecture draft? > Do you think it is ready to be published as a RFC? > (Ditto.) > > -- Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
