At this point I will leave it to my co-authors and the WG. I do not think the reference adds much, but I am not going to fuss over adding an informational reference.
Yours, Joel > -----Original Message----- > From: Mach Chen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:33 AM > To: Joel Halpern; Joel M. Halpern; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [i2rs] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-06 > > Hi Joel, > > In my understanding, an informational reference can be either > WG or now-WG draft. But anyway, I believe that the > traceability draft will be a WG draft before the publication > of this document. > > BTW, so far, all the references of this document are > informational, I do not think draft-traceability is different > from other references. So let's make it as an informational > reference. > > Best regards, > Mach > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joel Halpern [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:26 AM > > To: Mach Chen; Joel M. Halpern; > > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [i2rs] Shepherd review on > draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-06 > > > > I have trouble constructing the sentence such that an informational > > reference is useful, but it does not become normative. > > I would note that even for an informational reference I > would want to > > have a WG adopted draft. I believe that hurdle will be > cleared in sufficient time. > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mach Chen [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 8:24 PM > > > To: Joel M. Halpern; [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: [i2rs] Shepherd review on > > > draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-06 > > > > > > 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
