Alvaro: Your comments always matter to me whether the comments are blocking or not. (smile).
On you not getting "warm fuzzies" on these two documents - my real concern is that we are doing the right thing in the work. I think I know what you want in the document. Let me talk this over with my other co-authors. We are really trying to address the scaling and performance on the outbound/inbound side in data flow, and within the process in the amount of resources spent on the router. This impacts the data models and the protocol. I'll catch up with you via phone or at IETF to talk more about this. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Retana (aretana) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:11 PM To: Susan Hares; 'The IESG' Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13: (with COMMENT) On 3/15/16, 4:19 PM, "iesg on behalf of Susan Hares" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Sue: > >On B - you would like to place architecture qualities of the large data >flows outbound (e.g. pub-sub), and large data flows inbound (e.g. large >updates) in the architecture document. I'm fine with this approach >since I2RS is actively working on these features. On this topic, I >want to validate the approach and my text with my co-authors (give me a >few hours). No, I don't *want* to put anything in the document. Let's start form the beginning... The text in Section 3. (Key Architectural Properties) says that "some architecture properties such as performance and scaling are not described below because they are discussed in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement]". >From this text I assume that performance and scaling are important -- which is why they're called out in this section. I don't think that I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement says anything, that can be called a "Key Architectural Property", about performance and scaling. If the description of performance and scaling as "key architectural properties" is not in I-D.ietf-i2rs-problem-statement, then it should be somewhere, right? I said my preference is to describe them in the architecture document, but the decision of where to put it is yours. I don't want to add anything to the document that you didn't already mention should be considered as a "key architectural property". The details of what this description looks like are up to you. ... > >Let me know if "A" answers works for you. It honestly didn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling, but I'm ok with that. Please keep in mind that none of my comments are blocking this document. Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
