Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Sue,

This looks good - thanks.  I will put it into IETF Last Call.

Regards,
Alia

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alia:
>
>
>
> I’ve updated version 19 with the changes. The only change I did not
> implement was to combine section 5 and 6.   The NETCONF group asked us not
> to combine these two sections.  I left these two sections intact.   Does
> this work for you?
>
>
>
>
>
> Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:37 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>