On 7/24/14, 10:58 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
Joe:
Is there a use case information we should save in the I2RS use case
document?
We outlined a few in section 4 of the draft. It's not a use case for
I2RS per se, but we presented use cases as justification for the
traceability. In my neck of the woods, being able to have accurate
visibility into what the I2RS Agent is doing makes it much easier to
pinpoint the moment that a change occurred and what that change is so
that we can replicate operations or rule out known changes when
troubleshooting.
Joe
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Direct
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:35 AM
To: Susan Hares; 'Joe Clarke'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability
No, I am not proposing that the information model is separate from the data
model for work that I1RS models.
What I am proposing is that these important system requirements are
requirements that we need to keep in front of us, but not requirements that
the I2RS message exchanges need to directly support. Frankly, I do not
foresee an I2RS model for this information at all.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/24/14, 9:25 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
Joel:
Are proposing that Informational models are separate documents than
data models?
Sue
-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:38 PM
To: Joe Clarke; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability
I would like to see the draft adopted by the WG, without the YANG model.
Thank you,
Joel
On 7/23/14, 1:26 PM, Joe Clarke wrote:
At the meeting yesterday, the chairs called out a few non-chartered
drafts that had progressed and should have a final decision made as
to their future. One was our draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability.
I would like to address the question the chairs raised on the draft
and ask the WG if this can be adopted. The question was, should this
draft be standalone or part of the architecture doc.
This draft originally began as comments to Alia on the arch draft.
Alia suggested that a draft outlining what should be logged for
purposes of traceability should be created independent of the arch.
Since then, the arch has had some traceability language added, but
the details spelled out in draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability take these
"breadcrumbs" and expand on them specific to what would be required
for those needing to do diagnostic operations, accounting, and
auditing. On top of that, the architecture draft is very well-baked
right now, and would benefit from going through on its own.
In that case, I feel that this draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability stands
very much on its own and compliments the arch draft.
Some of the feedback we've had on our latest rev (-02) was regarding
the YANG model we added. The comments have been that a YANG model
really isn't needed here. In fact, some of the general parts of this
might fit in the new syslog model work happening in NETMOD. We would
not be opposed to taking out this module, and retaining the English
text explaining the importance of logging in I2RS as well as what
should be logged.
Therefore, we (the authors) would ask the WG for two things:
1. Closure on the YANG module question.
2. Adoption of draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability as a WG item
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
