Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18 - REQ-12
Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Wed, 05 October 2016 14:51 UTC
Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E2712977C; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.517
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6-hJoWDCmoOg; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F321F129633; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5943; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1475679105; x=1476888705; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tXUh8yRmg01qwEzpcJQDoFhunt3BK9BP1jYkIRb5LYM=; b=lTcZGM5pTrDZAgm/eXN33g70tVg6axrXbmbD5uwR+kYCAjIYwKY0uahX zsZxSu9tYU4CnlSqL3BrBHVmRlj6MyqzYFelh3UiKo72X/m5l8W8M88Zo Uj741/O8ijNbP+LamtSoshXIAJduVMAAEUa5NtW4qxL7hsA/aexqmdbQA k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BuAgCAEvVX/5JdJa1TCRkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM9AQEBAQEeVypSjTKWfpQqggkbC4V6AoFxOBQBAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4RhAQEBAwEBAQE1LwcXBAsOAwQBAQEnBycfCQgGAQwGAgEBFwSIJwgOuR8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARkFhjyBfQiCUIQXCYYFAQSTeIYCj3cCgWyEZoMUhguMc4N+HjZLhHUiNIYHgi8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,449,1473120000"; d="scan'208";a="330201569"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Oct 2016 14:51:44 +0000
Received: from [10.150.55.100] (dhcp-10-150-55-100.cisco.com [10.150.55.100]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u95EpiiN024761; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 14:51:44 GMT
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, 'Alia Atlas' <akatlas@gmail.com>, i2rs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state@ietf.org
References: <CAG4d1rccNuy1OuUHkhQok=jrnVnqR06TmBR5sV6OoqxaWMj31Q@mail.gmail.com> <f931ee98-583a-d67a-02e7-66a5e1681e1b@joelhalpern.com> <00fe01d21f0c$9aab1e60$d0015b20$@ndzh.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Message-ID: <41914992-d094-d6c5-b3e4-a7960cae29bb@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:51:43 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00fe01d21f0c$9aab1e60$d0015b20$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/9saQifbWNjD1BBvinDtIFsNTtOA>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18 - REQ-12
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:51:51 -0000
On 10/5/16 09:30, Susan Hares wrote: > Joel: > > WFM - see inclusion in version 19. Agreed. And I agree with Alia's comment. The overwriting client should just succeed. Why let them know (again) that it worked via a notification. Joe > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 3:26 AM > To: Alia Atlas; i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18 - REQ-12 > > We probably should tweak the wording on REQ-12. The notification is only > needed when the new operation succeeds. > When the new operation fails, the requester will receive an error, and the > original state is still there, so no notification is needed. I should have > realized that in my earlier review. > > Suggested fix, add text at left margin: > Ephemeral-REQ-12: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying > to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error > and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When > there is a collision, > and the data node is changed, > a notification (which includes indicating data > node the collision occurred on) MUST BE sent to the original client > to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues > surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their > state. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 10/4/16 10:37 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As is customary, I have done my AD review of >> draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18. First, I would like to thank Sue >> and Jeff for their hard work pulling this document together in an >> effort to add clarity to the requirements. >> >> I do have a number of comments - many relatively minor. Assuming a >> fast turn-around, as usual from I2RS, we should be able to have this >> on the Oct 27 telechat - which will mean it needs to enter IETF Last >> Call before the end of this week. >> >> Here is my review: >> >> Major: >> >> 1) Ephemeral-REQ-12: This specifies that a notification be sent to >> the original client, regardless of whether it won or lost the priority >> collision. >> I had assumed that the notification would go to either the requesting >> client or the original client depending on which one lost the priority > comparison. >> I have some concerns about an indirect flood of notifications caused >> by a requesting client that has the lower priority. Regardless, >> clarifying that the lower-priority client is notified is important. >> >> >> >> Minor: >> a) Intro: Remove "3 suggest protocol strawman" as something that >> the I2RS requirements must do. I know that is how the process >> has been working out - but it isn't dictated by the technology >> at all - as the other 2 are. Similarly, replace the following >> paragraph "The purpose of these requirements and the suggested >> protocol strawman is to provide a quick turnaround on creating >> the I2RS protocol." with something like "The purpose of these >> requirements is to ensure clarity during I2RS protocol creation." >> >> b) Section 2: "The following are ten requirements that [RFC7921] >> contains which provide context for the ephemeral data state >> requirements given in sections 3-8:" >> How about "The following are requirements distilled from [RFC7921] >> that provide context for..." >> >> 1) Not relevant for ephemeral - this matters for pub/sub (suggest >> removal) >> 2) Relevant for ephemeral b/c of vague performance requirements on >> possible solutions. >> 3) What changes if the data model is protocol dependent? Is this >> just that >> the model may be an augmentation/extension of an existing module? >> 4) Absolutely - keep >> 5) Absolutely - keep >> 6) Remove - not relevant for ephemeral just security requirements >> 7) Remove - not relevant for ephemeral just security requirements >> 8) Absolutely - keep (but says storing secondary identity on >> deletion when >> that isn't mentioned for (4) b/c it's about priority - so >> clarify slightly) >> 9) Absolutely - keep >> 10) Remove - not relevant for ephemeral >> >> c) Sec 3.3 bullet 2: This refers to YANG data model instead of YANG >> module as >> in bullet 1. If there's a reason for the difference, please >> clarify and otherwise >> make consistent. >> >> d) Sec 5 & 6 for NETCONF and RESTCONF are the same requirements. >> Please consolidate into a section of "The changes to NETCONF and the >> conceptual changes to RESTCONF are" >> >> e) Sec 8: I found this pull-out unclear. "multiple operations in one >> or more messages; though errors in >> message or operation will have no effect on other messages or >> commands even they are related." >> >> I think you mean "Multiple operations in one message can be sent. >> However >> an error in one operation MUST NOT stop additional operations >> from being >> carried out nor can it cause previous operations in the same message > to >> be rolled back." >> >> Nits: >> >> i) Abstract: "attempting to meet I2RS needs has to provide"/ >> "attempting to meet the needs of I2RS has to provide" >> >> ii) 3.2: "MPLS LSP-ID or BGP IN-RIB" please expand acronyms >> >> iii) Sec 5 last sentence: Either missing a ( or has an unneeded ). >> >> iv) Ephemeral-REQ-11: "I2RS Protocol I2RS Protocol" repeated >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> i2rs@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > i2rs@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
- [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-sta… Alia Atlas
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Alia Atlas
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Alia Atlas
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Joe Clarke