[i2rs] Comments re: draft-i2rs-ephemeral-state-12

"Alexander Clemm (alex)" <alex@cisco.com> Fri, 01 July 2016 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <alex@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA1F12B004 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D3XnEW0iFyX2 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD14212D0A0 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8214; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1467332007; x=1468541607; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=kRaS9BmlHZD/RHoyLF5mHR9JAb/BTsO58v4y5xW8NUQ=; b=HDpC0M8h7IEgUuJv9YPsVHGm8xjVJj7cucntoTOlGCX2FJRrI2QgS36d kutLgD1E/4Q23jjuMJ5cvzA1gHQyVELihStDzxVwvN9RSoSl7FcTpre/c iOv1rvZOoORB4RVzJP82OL2QwfEtcJXNhEpjiWdykBNWd+DjcNHjmLYUj w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,554,1459814400"; d="scan'208,217";a="290720928"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Jul 2016 00:13:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com (xch-rtp-002.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u610DQHM028781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:13:26 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ( by XCH-RTP-002.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:13:25 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:13:25 -0400
From: "Alexander Clemm (alex)" <alex@cisco.com>
To: "Susan Hares (shares@ndzh.com)" <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments re: draft-i2rs-ephemeral-state-12
Thread-Index: AdHTLLXVK5j65/HKSm+eYJHHuRfLTg==
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:13:25 +0000
Message-ID: <9394d0df0b724551b691959366dc2310@XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9394d0df0b724551b691959366dc2310XCHRTP001ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/USF56RY1OlToPooFaJH8TSL7pLY>
Cc: "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>
Subject: [i2rs] Comments re: draft-i2rs-ephemeral-state-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: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 00:13:30 -0000

Hi Susan,

this document looks very good & I clearly support it.

Just two very minor comments:

-          editorial nits - page  2:  "Sections 7" --> "Section 7"; "is I2RS protocol requirement" --> "is an I2RS protocol requirement"

-          I consider Ephemeral-REQ-03 as very important ("may have constraints that refer to operational state").  I am wondering, should the draft mention how to deal with the fact that it is possible for operational state to dynamically change.  I would think it is might be worth stating something to the effect that constraints should be assessed when ephemeral state is written, and that situations are conceivable where violations of such constraints might occur due to changing of operational state after the write occurred.   By the nature of the issue, the framework must allow for that; how to deal with such a situation and maintain integrity of the ephemeral configuration in such cases is up to the client.

One thought re: section 9, clearly we have a requirement to support subscriptions against ephemeral data; is there a requirement for subscriptions to be ephemeral themselves?  (I think it is implicitly supported via dynamic subscriptions.)

--- Alex