Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Wed, 05 October 2016 14:14 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB165129743; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:14:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 MABvw4VFo5w5; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22a.google.com (mail-yw0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C6B5129741; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id t193so81300055ywc.2; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 07:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jT29/xOhr7Rw1Ww6S7WXTu6wzz2X6MgRnYseEor1BnI=; b=vuCBMGq8MQ1s2svulW2tOlvCmTOzHfa2TOafOVj6G2bIPo/2FhS+hLvUhER3jmYQvS 6Aoq4B5b/CPrJd6WMyE1fi9BZsG34aUEkEC0osrPYZlDXDp3QF8ju+8rZC7Y2l28K3jQ tqWXeT4MTQrriK3U/1PH6PrsDil6Wi0l/nHTw1V1OYLFFrm2WwWyXopzZRBmy9ZAXaq2 Eu5ovJh2hEeLq/xJpr7RULr55BLk7418XmsEg0tkAZ0OVriNMqgPjD4/bwEYwkESrVQd zLnBqxXw1lqza92PZgGen1xo19jA9Rpk/x7SjG8lx1r0R0V9D1U3wvdWAQYpsRUzHfcy QjeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jT29/xOhr7Rw1Ww6S7WXTu6wzz2X6MgRnYseEor1BnI=; b=muk2YLJYcALdd24A6k5AWCLFpBIT4+1UkEvwZaDZEY752LeJE+NmyvnV7+njCB4Pxs pOI4AO5Ed/Ps3l7J9XQEZFNTJyQ8ATKSpv8R4340exGPNA63BqzkHNHn4UmOf/pASNkU 2k2iij+hgwfXtM0VsFX9OWc6BHQCYl4Kz7ZdgArjxE2STetia/G6J1Tmx4vt92V5QZCs ZrJrgZoh0JSpmPIbQw0Zk+Fd+nPnFfXaLMicm5HxbJFj5OJXXtexlvYTBox5JF26WUpD Lb0TiBOSowQPi3fv1yLVGJiRV7LiVhQmvIXVjAE+fsf6AWLIEKUjDQAGJeoDOStO3hcW bUlw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnLKl1ScxHMIB+wTzVXiEGb/R3cO2GdZnMrOkMpj3h0K/S+STDRBZ48qt8pyDFGIOJJSIQ2wTSPms+Exg==
X-Received: by 10.129.113.67 with SMTP id m64mr2662336ywc.227.1475676847281; Wed, 05 Oct 2016 07:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.56.133 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2016 07:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00f101d21f0b$2c1a7b40$844f71c0$@ndzh.com>
References: <CAG4d1rccNuy1OuUHkhQok=jrnVnqR06TmBR5sV6OoqxaWMj31Q@mail.gmail.com> <00f101d21f0b$2c1a7b40$844f71c0$@ndzh.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:14:06 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rdwe7X9q_uTb+XP3cArqmFATSG+XA8WXOoAjFv61=unyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141c1424935bd053e1ecafb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/gFlVdqY8ckjbkQWdcfgfm-gY11Q>
Cc: Jeff Haas <jhaas@juniper.net>, "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2016 14:14:12 -0000
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 <shares@ndzh.com> 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:akatlas@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:37 PM > *To:* i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state@ietf.org > *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 > > >
- [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-sta… Alia Atlas
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Alia Atlas
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Alia Atlas
- Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral… Joe Clarke