Hi Robert, Thanks for the review. Comments in-line.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Late but still few comments on the draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03: > > > 1. > > This I2RS architecture recognizes that the routing > > system and a router’s OS provide useful mechanisms > > that applications could harness to accomplish > > application-level goals. > > What happens if multiple applications have mutually exclusive needs ? > It is not really an error as applications and clients by design are > independent. Where is the arbitration to take place ? In I2RS Client, > in I2RS Agent or in global router's RIB ? > [Alia] Well, each I2RS Client will have a priority that the I2RS Agent uses to determine who wins - but we agreed to set the multiple writers of the same state as an "error". [Alia] I'd argue that the applications are set up by network operators to do something and having them collide is something that an operator would need to investigate. In the meantime, the I2RS system would just assure predictability and avoid oscillation. > 2. > Fundamental question ... > > Is the I2RS protocol communication to take place in-band, out-of-band > or both of the data plane ? If we are including in-band I presume > there is serious risk that the information carried within the protocol > may cause in-band channels to stop working hence the device becomes > unreachable (at least for the I2RS system). > > It may be good for architecture document to be able to comment on it. > [Alia] Good point. In Sec 7.2 on Communication Channels, I've added: "I2RS protocol communication can be delivered in-band via the routing system's data plane. I2RS protocol communication might be delivered out-of-band via a management interface. Depending on what operations are requested, it is possible for the I2RS protocol communication to cause the in-band communication channels to stop working; this could cause the I2RS agent to become unreachable across that communication channel." > 3. > > Anticipated I2RS Services > > Is OEM hidden within the "Dynamic Data & Statistics" or is it just > plain missing ? ;) > [Alia] Hiding - if you have text that you'd suggest, please do. Thanks for the careful review, Alia > Many thx, > R. > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
