Hi Tom and Joel, OK, that's just a suggestion, I'm OK with either way, I will leave the discretion to the authors.
Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 8:57 PM > To: Joel Halpern > Cc: Mach Chen; Joel M. Halpern; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-06 > > > I personally do not want to add the additional reference. I don't see > how > this adds anything that is critically missing from the draft as it currently > stands. > Lets please move things forward and only make changes that are critically > needed. > > --Tom > > > > On Dec 5, 2014:6:13 AM, at 6:13 AM, Joel Halpern <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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
