Now I understand your confusion.
Putting aside the abstract, I thought we were focused om task 1 (from the charter) in writing. I think we probably crept into task 2, resulting in a document which is confusing about its scope.

Not sure how to resolve this.
Yours,
Joel

On 3/24/16 9:03 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Joel,

Thanks, that's helpful.

1. Let's look at the charter

    The I2RS working group works to develop a high-level architecture that
    describes the basic building-blocks necessary to enable the specific
    use
    cases, and that will lead to an understanding of the abstract
    informational models and requirements for encodings and protocols
    for the I2RS interfaces.

2. Let's review the draft abstract

        This document describes the IETF architecture for a standard,
        programmatic interface for state transfer in and out of the Internet
        routing system.  It describes the basic architecture, the components,
        and their interfaces with particular focus on those to be
        standardized as part of the Interface to Routing System (I2RS).

Reading 1., I understand your point of view.
However, I read 2. as this draft is about "we are using pieces X, Y, and
Z, in ways A, B, and C, to solve the I2RS problem."
I reviewed the draft content looking for 1., and could not find it.

Do you understand my confusion?

Regards, Benoit
Benoit, you seem to be looking for a level of specificity in the
architecture that the working group never intended.
The charter calls for a high level architecture.

I believe your comment calls out an interesting gap in the charter, as
there is no document called out which actually says "we are using
pieces X, Y, and Z, in ways A, B, and C, to solve the I2RS problem."

We could have tried to use the architecture document for that, but the
intention was to use the architecture document to guide the selection
of protocol and mechanisms.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/24/16 6:53 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Sue,

  >Two of the existing protocols which the
  > which may be re-used are NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF
  > [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf].

editorial "may be reused".  / I will check with RFC editor (some
people say
reused /re-used).

What does it mean? I was hoping that an architecture documents
would at
least tell me which protocols are used.
  On my side this architecture is flexible (NETCONF or RESTCONF),
on the
other side unclear (YANG 1.0 or
YANG1.1), and in some cases, a complete specification (for example the
notification)

Sue: NETCONF and RESTCONF will be supported as part of the I2RS
protocols.
The architecture does out rule out other data transfer protocols,
but says
the WG will design I2RS as a higher level protocol that combines other
protocols (NETCONF/RESTCONF + x).
This is what I could not understand with the draft sentence: "Two of the
existing protocols which the which may _be re-used_ are NETCONF
[RFC6241] and RESTCONF > [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]."
Sure many things could be reused. I'm expecting from an architecture
document to explain which pieces are used and how they are used.
The I2RS requirements documents and
protocol strawman will state is if any other protocols will be used
for a
particular version of I2RS with a particular scope for data modules.
Probably, my issue stems from the fact that I2RS produces an
architecture before fixing requirements.

I am sorry if this is not what you excepted, but it was my direction
from my
AD on how to approach this work.

At this time, we are closing in on the last of the requirements
documents -
the requirements for other data flows.
draft-hares-i2rs-dataflow-req-02 that gives the potential scope of data
flows, but IMO the first version of the I2RS is likely to stay with
just
NETCONF/RESTCONF with ephemeral state, push pub/sub support, syslog
module
library, and some yang changes.


    To handle I2RS Agent failure, the I2RS Agent must  use two
different
notifications.
NOTIFICATION_I2RS_AGENT_STARTING:   This notification signals to the
         I2RS Client(s) that the associated I2RS Agent has
started.  It
          includes an agent-boot-count that indicates how many
times the
          I2RS Agent has restarted since the associated routing
element
          restarted.  The agent-boot-count allows an I2RS Client to
          determine if the I2RS Agent has restarted.  (Note: This
          notification will be only transmitted to I2RS clients
which are
          know in some way after a reboot.)
No comment on "the I2RS Agent _must _use two different notifications"?
This one is clear spec.
- editorial:
   Optionally, a routing element may permit a priority to be to be....
   For the case when the I2RS ephemeral state always wins for a data
  model, if there is an I2RS ephemeral state value it is installed
   instead of the local configuration state.
Again, I read that sentence multiple times, and could not
understand it
Sue: Reasonable editorial comment.  This was added to address another
comment,
But it looks like we broken something.  Text change below.

  Old/  Optionally, a routing element may permit a priority to be to be
    configured on the device for the Local Configuration mechanism
    interaction with the I2RS model.  The policy mechanism would
compare
    the I2RS client's priority with that priority assigned to the Local
    Configuration in order to determine whether Local Configuration or
    I2RS wins.

    For the case when the I2RS ephemeral state always wins for a data
    model, if there is an I2RS ephemeral state value it is installed
    instead of the local configuration state.  The local configuration
    information is stored so that if/when I2RS client removes I2RS
    ephemeral state the local configuration state can be restored.
/
New:
Optionally, a routing element may permit a priority to be to be
to be to be
    configured on the device for the Local Configuration mechanism
    interaction with the I2RS model.  The policy mechanism would
compare
    the I2RS client's priority with that priority assigned to the Local
    Configuration in order to determine whether Local Configuration or
    I2RS wins.

    For the case when the configured priority of the I2RS ephemeral
    Is higher than the Local Configuration's policy, the
    The I2RS ephemeral state value it is installed
remove "it"
    instead of the local configuration state.  The local configuration
    information is stored so that if/when I2RS client removes I2RS
    ephemeral state the local configuration state can be restored.
/

figure 2. "The initial services included in the I2RS architecture
are as
follows."
Are these really the initial services for I2RS. I2RS is really dealing
with all these: interfaces, policy, QoS, ...
Maybe I should review the I2RS charter?
Sue:  Our charter is wide, but only ephemeral layer deep.  Due to the
excellent people in the NETCONF/NETMOD, routing area (rtgwg) and
TEAS - we
are focusing on allowing ephemeral to be added to any data model.
I2RS WG
is focused first on the I2RS protocol and protocol independent modules.
After this, I2RS purpose is to simply support other WGs in creating
data
modules with ephemeral state.

   The I2RS  protocol may need to use several underlying transports
(TCP,
SCTP
   (stream control transport protocol), DCCP (Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol)), with suitable authentication and integrity
  protection mechanisms
  Do you really want to have define transports?
Sue: We indicate that I2RS will use these protocols.  Each protocol we
mention has to be then validated with requirements (see protocol
security
requirement and security environment requirements).

So I2RS will publish a second architecture doc when the requirements are
validated and the protocols (transport, config, notifications) are
finally selected?

Regards, Benoit


_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

.



_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to