Hi Joel, Thanks for your response!
In my mind, I thought a informative reference is enough, which could help readers to understand more about traceability but will not block the publication of this document. How do you think? Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:04 PM > To: Mach Chen; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-06 > > Thanks for the review. The editorial items we clealry should apply. > If we put in a normative reference to draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability (or even > to the > WG adopted version, which would be the minimum necessary) we would create > a block to publication. Given that we are not trying to mandate the details > here, > I don't think we need a reference. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/3/14, 10:22 PM, Mach Chen wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > > > I just finished the shepherd review on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-06, > > it's well > written and easy for reading. I have the following comments for this version, > most of them are editorial comments. > > > > 1. > > Some (not well-known) of the acronyms may need to be expanded in their first > use. For example, DCCP, etc. > > > > 2. > > The architecture document raises a lot of requirements to I2RS protocol, > Information model, Data model. It somehow can be treated as a requirement > document. But I only found that there is only one place that uses the RFC2119 > language and no reference to RFC2119 (idnits tool also pointed this). Do we > need > to use the RFC2219 language for all requirements or just change only one > place to > non-RFC2119 usage? > > > > 3. > > Section 1.2 the last third paragraph > > > > "..., these these error cases should be > > resolved by the network applications and management systems." > > > > There is a redundant "these". > > > > 4. > > Section 6.1 > > > > "To facilitate operations, deployment and troubleshooting, it is > > important that traceability of the I2RS Agent's requests and actions > > be supported via a common data model." > > > > Seems it's better to make a reference to draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability > > here. > > > > 5. > > Section 6.2.1 > > > > "The I2RS Agent Agent must send a > NOTIFICATION_I2RS_AGENT_TERMINATING to all > > its cached I2RS Clients." > > > > There is a redundant "Agent". > > > > 6. > > Section 6.2.3 > > > > "An I2RS Agent may decide that some state should no longer be applied. > > An I2RS Client may instruct an Agent to remove state it has applied. > > In all such cases, the state will revert to what it would have been > > without the I2RS; that state is generally whatever was specified via > > the CLI, NETCONF, SNMP, etc." > > > > An I2RS can only withdraws its own states that have been applied to the > specific Routing Element, there may be other I2RS clients are in effect. So > the > decription "the state will revert to what it would have been without the I2RS" > may not be accuracy. How about changing it as: > > "...the state will revert to what it would have been without the I2RS > > Client; that > state is generally whatever was specified via the CLI, NETCONF, SN, MP, other > I2RS Clients etc." > > > > 7. > > Section 6.4.1 > > > > "...per-interface." This..." > > > > There is a redundant " in between. > > > > s/per-platform-/per-platform > > > > 8. > > Section 6.4.5.4 > > > > Should the editors' note be removed before sending to IESG review? > > > > > > 9. > > Section 7.8 > > > > s/it be possible/it is possible > > > > Hope this useful! > > > > Best regards, > > Mach > > > > _______________________________________________ > > i2rs mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
