Re: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability

[Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>]

On 7/24/14, 10:58 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
> Joe:
>
> Is there a use case information we should save in the I2RS use case
> document?

We outlined a few in section 4 of the draft.  It's not a use case for 
I2RS per se, but we presented use cases as justification for the 
traceability.  In my neck of the woods, being able to have accurate 
visibility into what the I2RS Agent is doing makes it much easier to 
pinpoint the moment that a change occurred and what that change is so 
that we can replicate operations or rule out known changes when 
troubleshooting.

Joe

>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joel Halpern Direct
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:35 AM
> To: Susan Hares; 'Joe Clarke'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability
>
> No, I am not proposing that the information model is separate from the data
> model for work that I1RS models.
>
> What I am proposing is that these important system requirements are
> requirements that we need to keep in front of us, but not requirements that
> the I2RS message exchanges need to directly support.  Frankly, I do not
> foresee an I2RS model for this information at all.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 7/24/14, 9:25 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
>> Joel:
>>
>> Are proposing that Informational models are separate documents than
>> data models?
>>
>> Sue
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:38 PM
>> To: Joe Clarke; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Follow-up on draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability
>>
>> I would like to see the draft adopted by the WG, without the YANG model.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Joel
>>
>> On 7/23/14, 1:26 PM, Joe Clarke wrote:
>>> At the meeting yesterday, the chairs called out a few non-chartered
>>> drafts that had progressed and should have a final decision made as
>>> to their future.  One was our draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability.
>>>
>>> I would like to address the question the chairs raised on the draft
>>> and ask the WG if this can be adopted.  The question was, should this
>>> draft be standalone or part of the architecture doc.
>>>
>>> This draft originally began as comments to Alia on the arch draft.
>>> Alia suggested that a draft outlining what should be logged for
>>> purposes of traceability should be created independent of the arch.
>>> Since then, the arch has had some traceability language added, but
>>> the details spelled out in draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability take these
>>> "breadcrumbs" and expand on them specific to what would be required
>>> for those needing to do diagnostic operations, accounting, and
>>> auditing.  On top of that, the architecture draft is very well-baked
>>> right now, and would benefit from going through on its own.
>>>
>>> In that case, I feel that this draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability stands
>>> very much on its own and compliments the arch draft.
>>>
>>> Some of the feedback we've had on our latest rev (-02) was regarding
>>> the YANG model we added.  The comments have been that a YANG model
>>> really isn't needed here.  In fact, some of the general parts of this
>>> might fit in the new syslog model work happening in NETMOD.  We would
>>> not be opposed to taking out this module, and retaining the English
>>> text explaining the importance of logging in I2RS as well as what
>>> should be logged.
>>>
>>> Therefore, we (the authors) would ask the WG for two things:
>>>
>>> 1. Closure on the YANG module question.
>>> 2. Adoption of draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability as a WG item
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> i2rs mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> i2rs mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>