Re: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

>From the comments so far, it is clear that there is work to be done on this
draft before adoption.  I am quite eager to see the set of reasonable
use-cases get discussed and put in.

A single draft of BGP use-cases would be good.  Once one is adopted, the WG
can direct the editors to add cases - if and when there is consensus to do
so.

I don't think that a single draft of all I2RS use-cases is at all
practical.

I would be happy to see more detailed discussion on what does and doesn't
belong in the draft.  My personal (WG-chair hat off) preference would be to
focus on those cases that aren't "just another configuration mechanism" and
that clearly articulate the feedback loop needed of monitored data and
events as well as data to modify/write.

Alia


On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 28/07/13 20:15 -0400, Russ White wrote:
> >
> > > Please review draft-keyupdate-irs-bgp-usecases-02 and comment on
> > > whether it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation
> is
> > also
> > > most welcome.
> >
> > I was under the impression that this was being merged with
> > draft-white-i2rs-use-case... Did we decide to carry all these use cases
> > forward separately? Or not to carry draft-white-i2rs-use-case forward?
>
> WG Chairs - is the intent to only have one BGP use cases draft?
>
> The current keyupdate draft has a large number of use cases and
> scenarios, mostly focused on SP network requirements.  Also, I note
> that most of it's use cases are centralized deployment and vendor
> neutral specification of configuration oriented in nature.  If we are
> going to only progress one document to cover BGP use cases, I would
> prefer it cover at least some use cases oriented towards manipulation
> of routing information to meet service differentiated routing such as
> those specified in your draft.
>
> At this time without knowing the authors intent (although one of the
> authors is on both documents?) and lack of comment on Joel's similar
> feedback earlier to the group, I'm can't support adoption of this
> draft if there is only an intent to progress one.  I'd be willing to
> support it if the authors are committed to integrating the white draft
> use cases (that don't already overlap such as VPN membership) into a
> merged document however.
>
> Jon
>
>