[i2rs] Rtg Area QA Review: draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-02
"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sat, 10 October 2015 21:03 UTC
Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1221C1A916B for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0b9JplumDbYM for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxb2.tigertech.net (mxb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF8071A914C for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2FA580002; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2782F1C02C3; Sat, 10 Oct 2015 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
To: "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>, Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, 'Jon Hudson' <jon.hudson@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <56197D21.3090304@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:03:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/Jgv2VbvbUjZHUuAUMm2tiAqyKyc>
Subject: [i2rs] Rtg Area QA Review: draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-02
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:03:32 -0000
For details on Routing Area QA reviews, see: https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDirDocQa Name: draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-02 I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: October 10, 2015 This document is close to ready for working group last call. Major issues: None. Minor Issues: I would suggest that the introduction needs to include a description, longer than that in the abstract, of the purpose of the document. If the document purpose is as stated in the abstract, to provide requirements to NetConf and NetMod working groups regarding ephemeral state, then section 2 should have a bit more explanatory text, as the requirements there are explicitly not abotu ephemeral state. It may be as simple as stating that these requirements are repeated hear to provide context for the reader. Or whatever explanation does apply for why they are here. On section 3.2 requirement 02, the text prohibiting reference from non-ephemeral to ephemeral state needs some clarification. First, it should be clear that this is a requirement on behavior outside of I2RS, as I2RS can not refer to non-ephemeral state. Also, it seems likely that such incorrect references could be attempted at either model definition time or NetConf request application time. As such "validation error" may be too specific a description of the errors needed. Requirement 3.4 is written as if writeable / non-writeable were a new requirement to NetConf. I believe what is wanted here is only that there must be indications in the model of ephemeral elements, and that it is writeable. If there is a need for non-writeable ephemeral elements, that should be described seperately. At this reading, I do not see a need for such. Section 3.6 would benefit from an introductory sentence indicating that these requirements are included because they have an impact on viable solutions to the ephemeral state requirements, although they themselves are more general requirements applying to I2RS operations. Given that the design team is looking at a model which they describe as a limited panes of glass model, it seems that if section 4 is retained (as it provides useful context) section 4.2 needs to be modified to be clear as to what solution is being rejected. Editorial Issues: Not noted
- [i2rs] Rtg Area QA Review: draft-ietf-i2rs-epheme… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] Rtg Area QA Review: draft-ietf-i2rs-ep… Susan Hares