On 4/27/16 17:39, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
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.
Thanks for your comments and feedback, Les. Please see below for some replies and questions.
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.
Good observation. Traceability was aimed mainly at the termination of the request, but I like the idea of tracing the state machine.
Along with this an additional timestamp - Processing Initiated - would be useful to indicate when processing of the request actually began.
I don't know we need a new timestamp. Perhaps we just need to rename "Request Timestamp" and "Result Timestamp" to "Start Timestamp" and "End Timestamp" to denote the time within the current state. What do you think?
s/Some notable elements on the architecture/ Some notable elements of the architecture
Fixed. Thanks!
Figure 1 Not clear to me why Application IDs start at 0 but Client IDs start at 1.
Ah. The numbers there are not IDs. They are the number of actual things in the boxes above. For Applications, there may be 0 to N for a given client. For Clients, you need at least 1. Does that make sense?
Figure 1 Is the text "Op Data V" between I2RS Agent box and Routing System box intentional?
Yes. The 'V' is meant to be an arrow head pointed down. The request and data go from Client to Agent whereas the Response goes from Agent to Client.
We are open to suggestions on how to make this clearer.
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.
Good observation. I think it's fine to say that this field must be logged. If there is no application, then the field will be logged as empty. If there is an application, then whatever value is provided will be logged.
Do you feel strongly that we need a field to indicate Application Present?
Section 7.4 s/establish an vendor-agnostic/establish a vendor-agnostic
Fixed. Thanks! Joe _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
