Hi Tom, On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:12 AM, t.petch <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > [Alia] Partly, it is a different system model - where the agent can preempt a written operation or refuse a request - whether there is the idea and support for multi-headed control. I do think that there will be a lot of similarities with what RESTCONF can support - but also that there are gaps. > 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. > [Alia] As I understand it, state is the operational state in the router - and that is what is being discussed in general in this document. A while ago, I did go over the different terminology with Ron Bonica and Dean - when I realized that my perspective of "configuration state" was from inside a protocol implementation and so what was considered "operational state" different from the "configuration data-stores". In this case, I think that the document can be understood without a precise definition of state - or having it match that in the Ops Area and differ from that commonly used in Routing. [Alia] I do appreciate your review and different perspective. Thanks for taking the time and interest! Alia > 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
