Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-03.txt

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Mon, 05 October 2015 21:52 UTC

From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQ/48ycRaP9v1R9kGT1i8lPJG2IJ5dW4kwgABl2gD//6zv4A==
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 21:52:09 +0000
Message-ID: <82993ee9bf67495da7958e188282377a@XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com>
References: <20151002190856.30194.1040.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5612AC63.4020000@cisco.com> <f8a6b4a291e54fa2a681d0db1af83a9d@XCH-ALN-013.cisco.com> <5612EE1E.8030609@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <5612EE1E.8030609@joelhalpern.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/5_wcaKAdz6gTHXROGMLl8vB2AIA>
Cc: "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-03.txt
Precedence: list

> From: Joel M. Halpern, October 05, 2015 5:40 PM
> 
> I think I am missing something in the discussion of this first point about
> separation.
> While lots of implementation strategies are possible, the communication
> pattern I would anticipate for I2RS is that an I2RS client is communicating with
> an I2RS Agent who handles some piece(s) of information.  The client would send
> its subscription to that agent.  The client would expect the information resulting
> from its subscription to come back on a communications channel from the same
> entity.
> 
> So unless we add a lot of extra mechanisms to the protocol, I don't see how the
> effective manager of the subscription service for I2RS can be separate from the
> effective producer as seen by I2RS.

I agree with you.   I was trying to convey that I see no reason that the Requirements for the Subscription Service cannot be augmented (not changed) to allow for additional internal interface specifications.   

In this case, both incremental requirements and protocols would be needed.  There certainly wouldn't be one protocol.  I have no desire to pursue this myself.  Others might.

> You can have brokers who accept subscriptions from multiple parties, subscribe
> on their own behalf to the I2RS agent, and then fan the results out to other
> parties.  But that would seem to represent a
> (legitimate) reuse of the subscription mechanism in a different context.

Yes.

Eric

> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 10/5/15 5:22 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> > Hi Joe,
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: i2rs, October 05, 2015 12:59 PM
> >
> > I'm reading through the latest draft, and I have a few questions/comments.
> >
> > In section 3, could the Subscription Service be an external broker?
> > Said another way, it reads like the Subscription Service is/could be an external
> entity.  Is that the case, or will this always be a component of the Publisher?
> > <Eric> I don't know of any reason why the Subscription Service must be a
> component of the Publisher.

[i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requir… internet-drafts
Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-re… Joe Clarke
Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-re… Eric Voit (evoit)
Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-re… Joe Clarke
Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-re… Joel M. Halpern
Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-re… Eric Voit (evoit)
Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-re… Eric Voit (evoit)
Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-re… Joe Clarke