Dean:
Thank you for those comments in March.
-Original Message-
From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:de...@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:28 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: t.petch; i2rs@ietf.org; Jeffrey Haas; Edward Crabbe; Russ White
Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-white-i2rs-use-case-05
Lada:
Thanks for the pointer to text.
Sue Hares
-Original Message-
From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lho...@nic.cz]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 11:45 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: t.petch; Jeffrey Haas; i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-white-i2rs-use-case-05.txt has been
:06 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: t.petch; i2rs@ietf.org; Jeffrey Haas; Edward Crabbe; Russ White
Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-white-i2rs-use-case-05.txt has been posted
Susan,
I like the new format much better. It makes the reading more clear from
beginning. I disagree with REQ10. REQ10 implies
Juergen:
You are correct. This is the initial draft that shows our thinking. A
second draft was planned before IETF. I will hurry that up, and send within
this review cycle.
Sue
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent:
Jeff and I2RS:
Thank for your feedback. With your OK, I will continue copying these to
the use cases to the wiki.
Sue
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jh...@pfrc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:31 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; 'Jeffrey Haas'; Edward
, 2014 3:21 PM
To: Alvaro Retana; Susan Hares; Susan Hares; Russ White; Russ White; Alvaro
Retana
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-white-i2rs-use-case-03.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-white-i2rs-use-case-03.txt has been successfully
submitted by Susan Hares and posted to the IETF
/assumptions with I2RS. If you answered these questions, please
send email clip (private/public).
-Original Message-
From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:46 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] edit-data substatement Re
Comment 2
And this:
Jeff:
Do you consider the question from Ken's original post below to be answered?
snip
Ken's text
In contrast, although multiple I2RS clients may need to
supply data into the same list (e.g. a prefix or filter
list), this is not considered an
Nitin:
Let me start with my perception of the problem:
Problem: Your grammar does not handle source-destination form choice as a
generic form used by all of the interfaces.
Solution: Specify form as specific variable for all forms.
Confusion: I am suggesting two tags form-tagroute-type
Andy:
My goal is not to invent something new, so as an expert in netconf/restconf
role-based access control model could you:
1 – comment if this can be handle by netconf/restconf
Identity + role im-tree-portion, access permission pairs
2 – provide me with references to these
Andy:
Thanks. The pointer are helpful!
Sue
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:37 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Joel M. Halpern; Nitin Bahadur; i2rs@ietf.org; Mach Chen;
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-mo...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Some
: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:49 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Nitin Bahadur'; 'Joel Halpern Direct'; 'Mach Chen';
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-mo...@tools.ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Some comments on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-01
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:49:21AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
I'm
the yang module definition as you are the expert.
Sue
From: Andy Bierman [mailto:a...@yumaworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:03 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim; Dean Bogdanovic; Russ
White; Jan Medved (jmedved); Joel M. Halpern; Adrian Farrel
in clearly up where our assumptions were different.
Sue
-Original Message-
From: Nitin Bahadur [mailto:nitin_baha...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:10 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Mach Chen'; i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-mo...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Some comments
code. I think this does
provide what you require.
Can you tell me where your experience states this is a misstep?
Sue
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:40 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Nitin Bahadur
30, 2014 4:28 PM
To: Susan Hares; i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Some comments on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-01
IMHO your RIB functionality is insufficient as it stands because it
doesn't contain the SRC-DST lookup using the packet + Meta data. RIBs
should be able to match on the SRC
a
note.
Thanks,
Sue
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 10:42 AM
To: 'Andy Bierman'
Cc: Nitin Bahadur; i2rs@ietf.org; 'Edward Crabbe'; 'Jamal Hadi Salim'; 'Dean
Bogdanovic'; 'Russ White'; 'Jan Medved (jmedved)'; Alia Atlas
Juergen:
snip
I believe that a tool that generates a meaningful YANG data model out of a
UML information model requires so many details in the UML model that the UML
model stops being an information model. A data model has to be very clear
about naming. If you use YANG, you need to transfer an
Tom:
100% agree with your comments. I2RS cares whether it is read-only or
read-write. My work toward the revision found:
- RBNF RBNF did not even allow you a place to r/w or r-only or permissions
(needed for security, but that's my next draft).
- The yang tree I wrote was r-w for config, but
Andy:
Catching up. A few questions:
1) Why do you think that only the RIB matters in the long run (Short
run = RIB + BGP)
2) Your modeling questions are important .. so let me ask a
meta-question and then go a level deeper.
Why does netmod never really publish an
Nitin, Ron, Kini, Jan:
1) Is Section 7 of your document normative or informative?
2) Your grammar seems wordy/inconsistent in the repetition of the next
hop below
Your RIB grammar on page 17 states:
nexthop-list ::= special-nexthop |
something on the list?
Sue
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:31 PM
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; adr...@olddog.co.uk; Alia Atlas
Subject: [i2rs] draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-02
Nitin, Ron, Kini, Jan:
1
?
Sue
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2014 6:00 PM
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-02
Nitin, Ron, Kini and Jan:
I forgot to ask question
Nitin:
I've been digging into the RBNF forms in Section 6
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-02 based on what you indicated to mach. I
would like to confirm I understand your intent of the RBNF.
1) match will augment its sequence with a type
match ::= ipv4-route | ipv6-route | mpls-route |
Nitin, Ron: Kini, Jan:
This question RIB Grammar section 6:
rib::=RIB_NAME rib-family [route . ][ENABLE_IP_RPF_CHECK]
rib-family::==IPV4_RIB_FAMILY | IPV6_RIB_FAMILY | MPLS_RIB_FAMILY |
IEEE_MAC_RIB_FAMILY
In your grammar, my understanding of the . is limited. I assumed this
means
with issues.
I've switched over to the UML focus because it helps me find the issues with
the relationships to simplify the models.
Sue
-Original Message-
From: Dean Bogdanovic [mailto:de...@juniper.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2014 10:12 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim; i2rs
Tom:
100% agree on the process management in the hands of the chair. Thanks for
the email clarification since the verbal pointed toward tech-only. I hope
Ed or Jeff will comment.
Sue
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
Sent:
Behcet:
Can you tell me how the ONF Management and configuration protocol will
interface with the routing system with all the requirements set forth by the
architecture document? Please refer to version 2.0 architecture
Or review to the presentation at IETF. If you can present these
Mr. Ed, our wonderful and delightful co-chair:
This thread is address to the basic assumptions I've of the Yang/Netconf
decision is based on, and not a yes or no on the draft. However, your
insights will help me cast my vote as an engineer without emotional sway.
My sources:
I have
Dean:
Could you let me know what tool chains you consider necessary for
RESTCONF/Yang?
Do you start with informational models in the Yang/RESTCONF world?
Sue
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 9:18 AM
, 2014 11:57 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Dean Bogdanovic; i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Susan Hares sha...@ndzh.com wrote:
Behcet:
Can you tell me how the ONF Management
Behcet:
The burden of proof was on the group that proposed the forces/forces or
yang/netconf models.
Sue
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:57 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Dean Bogdanovic
Jamal and Tom:
Dean Bogdanovic and Ron Bonica clearly indicated there were two reasons:
business and technical. My understanding is that Ed Crabbe's context for
this discussion was to judge technical merit. Did I misunderstand the
context of this discussion to be engineering?
If this is an
Jamal:
Were you looking for details on OF-Config? I've enjoyed our discussions of
the OF-Config protocol - so this would be fun. However, my understanding is
that any proposal for i2rs data model language/protocol needs to at least
have one person who is willing to stand up and support it.
: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Dean Bogdanovic; Susan Hares
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Susan Hares sha...@ndzh.com wrote:
Behcet:
Can you tell me how
Nitin:
If it was to be a candidate, did you know someone who wanted to be the chief
supporter in the IETF?
Sue
From: Nitin Bahadur [mailto:nitin_baha...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 12:47 PM
To: sarik...@ieee.org; Susan Hares
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Dean
chairs that
set the constraints for our discussion.
I am still interested in the technical side of the Brocade decision.
Sue
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jan Medved (jmedved)
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:04 PM
To: Susan Hares; 'Jamal Hadi
Dean:
Thank you for the review. I Let me consider this comments for a day.
Sue
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 10:01 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Discussion of mobile backhaul Use case
Greetings:
The i2RS security discussion group is meeting starting today on Fridays at
5pm ET/2pm PT/ 5am China. If you wish to join this discussion group,
please send me email at sha...@ndzh.com.
Sue
___
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
Tom:
Thanks for corrections. Who do you think it was besides Linda?
Sue
-Original Message-
From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:22 AM
To: Susan Hares; i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alternative WG notes
Comparing these notes with the draft
During the last two weeks, people have indicated interested in mobile
backhaul cases.We would appreciate input on the following draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-i2rs-mbb-usecases/
If you are interested in chatting about this draft would you please contact
me
meeting.
If you wish to join the small group discussing security, please send me a note.
We are meeting weekly (virtually) to discuss and move this document forward
quickly.
Sue Hares
A new version of I-D, draft-hares-i2rs-security-00.txt has been successfully
submitted by Susan Hares
Jeff:
Thanks for the suggestion on the distributed reaction to the network, and
catching /IRS/I2RS/.
Could you just give me a short example of what you mean by enumerate the
capabilities?
Thanks,
Sue
-Original Message-
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Nitin:
Like Joel, I support the adoption of the draft. It is a better starting
place than the previous draft.
I would like suggest you need to consider Joel's comments and Russ'
comments.
Here's a few things that can hit problems in the draft:
1) Why is the BGP route distinguisher
Jon, Nitin, and Joel:
I too agree this draft is not ready for WG adoption.
To move this forward, I would suggest that the draft get broken into two
pieces:
1) What is a RIB and how i2rs will deal with it, and
2) RIB information model based on the first part.
The difficulty with the
601 - 645 of 645 matches
Mail list logo
