Hi Joe, Thanks for your prompt response!
It addresses my comments. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Clarke [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 6:56 PM > To: Mach Chen; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt > > Thanks for your comments, Mach. Responses inline... > > On 1/18/16 03:10, Mach Chen wrote: > > 2. > > Section 5.2 > > Client Address: This is the network address of the Client that > > connected to the Agent. For example, this may be an IPv4 or IPv6 > > address. [Note: will I2RS support interactions that have no > > network address? If so this field will need to be updated.] > > > > IMHO, the Note should be deleted for a to-be-published document. The IPv4 > and IPv6 are just examples, the description here does not exclude other > possibilities. > > Yep, good catch. > > > > > > > 3. Section 5.2 > > Requested Operation Data: This field comprises the data passed to > > the Agent to complete the desired operation. For example, if the > > operation is a route add operation, the Operation Data would > > include the route prefix, prefix length, and next hop information > > to be inserted as well as the specific routing table to which the > > route will be added. The operation data can also include > > interface information. > > > > Although the last sentence above is right, why do we need to emphasize the > "interface information" here? If there is no special intention, I'd suggest to > remove it. > > Yes, we'll remove it. The operation data field should echo the "operation > data." No need to be overly prescriptive here. The example ahead of this > sentence should suffice to illustrate the intent. > > > > > > > 3. Section 5.2 > > Transaction ID: The Transaction Identity is an opaque string that > > represents this particular operation is part of a long-running > > I2RS transaction that can consist of multiple... > > > > Here you specify that an Transaction ID is an opaque string, are there other > possibilities (e.g., uint) ? Since this is just an information model, how the > data > type should be is specific to the data model, I'd suggest to remove the data > type limitation from this document. > > Here we were emphasizing the fact that this can be anything one could > use to tie multiple operations together in a single transaction. > > Joe > > > > > > > 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
