Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to 8/15)

Joe: 

I will send out version 16 shortly. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Clarke [mailto:jclarke@cisco.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 4:33 PM
To: Susan Hares; i2rs@ietf.org
Cc: russ@riw.us; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to
8/15)

On 8/28/16 16:20, Susan Hares wrote:
> Joe:
>
> Let's start with the overview, and then go down to words.
>
> My concern:
> The phrasing of this impacts the OPSTATE discussions for Juergen.  
> Juergen is pushing for ephemeral to just be operational state.  Other 
> drafts are pushing for ephemeral state to be configuration and 
> ephemeral state.  I have suggested a different model in the
protocol-strawman for I2RS.
>
> What is important in this document is to indicate that ephemeral 
> models have both configuration and operational state.

Agreed.

>
> Words:
>
> This statement words for me in the beginning of section 3.
> /Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including in a data model 
> ephemeral configuration and operational state which is flagged as 
> ephemeral./
>
> If this works, for you as well - I'll create a version 16.

Yes, this works.

Joe

>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Clarke [mailto:jclarke@cisco.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 4:05 PM
> To: Susan Hares; i2rs@ietf.org
> Cc: russ@riw.us; 'Alia Atlas'
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 
> to
> 8/15)
>
> On 8/28/16 11:35, Susan Hares wrote:
>>> I think this is good.  A general comment I have is that "ephemeral
state"
>> is used in a number of places where I think "ephemeral configuration"
>> should be used.  >This may be a nit, but the device has one state 
>> that is dictated by the various configuration types and the 
>> operational state.  This was raised in BA in the meetings >as well.
>>
>>> My recommendation is to replace "ephemeral state" with "ephemeral
>>> configuration".   It's not a show-stopper the way it is, but I think the
>>> latter is a bit clearer.
>>
>> We had agreed that "ephemeral state" as what is defined in section 3.
>> Do you think clarifying this in the text would be better:
>>
>> Old/Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including both 
>> ephemeral configured state and operational state. / New/Ephemeral 
>> state is defined as potentially including in a data model ephemeral 
>> configuration state and operational state which is flagged as 
>> ephemeral./
>>
>> Without this explicit comment, Juergen did not consider
>> Ephemeral-REQ--01 thru Ephemeral-REQ-04 to be specific enough.
>
> To be clear, I think this is somewhat semantic.  A device has one 
> state that is made of a number of related things.  But this 
> terminology not a stopping thing for me.
>
> In the new text above, would the following not satisfy Jürgen's comment?
>
> /Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including in a data model 
> ephemeral configuration and operational state which is flagged as 
> ephemeral./
>
> Note: I simply drop the second "state" as this seems a bit clearer to 
> be (i.e., before it stated, essentially, that ephemeral state includes 
> ephemeral state).
>
>>> Section 7, bullet 2:  This text reads strangely:
>>>
>>> OLD TEXT:
>>>
>>> The I2RS protocol MUST support the
>>>      ability to have data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and not
>>>      the effective priority of the I2RS client at the time the data
>>>      node is stored.
>>
>>> PROPOSED NEW TEXT:
>>>
>>> The I2RS protocol MUST support the ability to have data nodes store 
>>> I2RS
>> client identity and not the effective priority of the I2RS client at
>>> the time the data node is stored.
>>
>> Warning: I am re-writing the ephemeral-protocol-security-requirements
>> so, the reference in bullet may change.  You new text works for me.
>
> Thanks and understood.
>
>> Works for me (WFM):   The complete sentences would be:
>>
>> As part of this requirement, the I2SR protocol should support:
>
> s/I2SR/I2RS/ :-)
>
>>  - multiple operations in one or more messages; though errors in one 
>> message or operation will have no effect on other messages or 
>> commands even if they are related.
>> - No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be inserted into 
>> the I2RS ephemeral state.
>
> Works for me.
>
>> If you confirm
>
> Thanks, Sue.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> i2rs@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>