On 6/11/14, 2:27 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:45:42PM -0700, Edward Crabbe wrote: >> All; >> >> Jeff and I are looking to adopt the following drafts, loosely grouped into >> the areas listed below: >> >> ================================ >> Protocol Functionality: >> ================================ >> >> draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-02 > > I do agree that traceability is an important requirement. I am > wondering why this is not mentioned in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03. > If it would be discussed in the architecture draft, we likely would > not need this I-D at this point in time (wait until we have a clearer > view how i2rs will work on the wire so we better understand logging > requirements or it might be that logging requirements should not be > addressed just for i2rs but in general for the selected i2rs > protocol).
One of the reasons this draft is separate was a desire from the architecture draft authors to have this stand as its own document. This work is important enough to merit such attention IMHO. We feel strongly this work should be done in the I2RS WG because this we want this to evolve with choices made by the WG with respect to protocol. This should be an effort to define elements for proper I2RS traceability independent of protocol or format. Those protocol-specific implementations of this I2RS Traceability can happen in their respective WGs. Keeping this tightly aligned to I2RS makes things easier and prevents a never-ending bike shed debate. Joe _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
