Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability/> Reviewer: Les Ginsberg Review Date: April 27, 2016 IETF LC End Date: April 29, 2016 Intended Status: Informational Summary: This document is a well written document - easy to understand. My compliments to the authors. I believe there is one minor issue which I would like to see addressed before publication. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: In Section 5.2 there is a definition of the information which is required to be kept by an I2RS Agent for each I2RS interaction. I would like to see the addition of "Request State" into this list. Operationally each request could be in one of the following states: * Enqueued (or pending if you prefer) * In process * Completed The lack of such a state seems to imply that both the queue time and the processing time are insignificant. While I think this may be the case for many requests, it will not always be the case. In queue time may be lengthy due to other load on the Agent. Also, some requests - particularly destructive requests which involve cleanup of resources - may take a significant amount of time to complete. Along with this an additional timestamp - Processing Initiated - would be useful to indicate when processing of the request actually began. Nits: Section 5.1 s/Some notable elements on the architecture/ Some notable elements of the architecture Figure 1 Not clear to me why Application IDs start at 0 but Client IDs start at 1. Figure 1 Is the text "Op Data V" between I2RS Agent box and Routing System box intentional? Section 5.2 Secondary Identity This is defined to be "opaque" yet if not provided the agent is supposed to insert "an UNAVAILABLE value". This seems to be a contradiction unless we have a publicly defined value that clients are prohibited from using. Absent that you would need a "Secondary Identity Valid" indicator. Section 7.4 s/establish an vendor-agnostic/establish a vendor-agnostic
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
