Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13: (with COMMENT)
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 22 April 2016 09:54 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 6325812DA9C; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.506 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_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xT9dkN2ffv2a; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80D212D83F; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=51028; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1461318852; x=1462528452; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=buf7KPwb8VSXic7wH4Ee5e5UtOlnTD0Vbej6jslnYSk=; b=Ri/2R1olfncGXD9zuEqSdF3hX+xWPIyTYB5X71Jf8wYlgSIuuE3F97La /cAispMe1yOE/CPaphiM/zj/E2X+/M/PAuVcT1OZTjY9SkOrOgkz/tMEj TuT7Wf04V+ulH0cxfa1ysYN6genfkImZ4I+/Yv1sRFWT/UcOOJ5a76uj1 o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,516,1454976000"; d="scan'208,217";a="634280335"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Apr 2016 09:54:09 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u3M9s8DA008330; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:54:08 GMT
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "'Joel M. Halpern'" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160317013624.18209.45055.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <046601d17ff5$70c29350$5247b9f0$@ndzh.com> <56F3C73A.9090500@cisco.com> <56F3DAB3.5040607@joelhalpern.com> <56F3E598.3030708@cisco.com> <56F3E678.4080105@joelhalpern.com> <019801d19c3b$18218af0$4864a0d0$@ndzh.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <5719F4C0.4040603@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:54:08 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <019801d19c3b$18218af0$4864a0d0$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080701050902090406000200"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/irquZyaHkZO_3MuGwpxFL1ombPI>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org, mach.chen@huawei.com, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture@ietf.org, Fred@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13: (with COMMENT)
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, 22 Apr 2016 09:54:16 -0000
On 4/22/2016 4:02 AM, Susan Hares wrote: > > Joel: > > I will need to resolve this before I can provide a final for the RFC > editor. Here's the way I understand these issues: > > 1) draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13.txt - is a high-level architecture > with building blocks. > > 2) It provides only general ideas on we are using "X, Y, and Z" in > ways "A, B, and C" to > > solve the "I2RS problem". > > 3) detailed requirements on what the I2RS protocol and interface > should be are contained in > > the i2rs requirements set > > ·Pub/sub requirements - draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06 (at > IESG publication) > > ·Traceability requirements - draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-08 (at IESG > publication) > > ·Protocol Security requirements - > draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-03 > > ·Ephemeral State requirements - draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-05 > > ·Data Flow Requirements - draft-hares-i2rs-dataflow-req-03 > > ·I2RS security requirements for environment - > draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-01 > > The protocol strawman is the proposal for using "X, Y, and Z" in ways > "A,B, and C" in order > > to solve the I2RS problem. > > 4) The architecture document and use cases were useful in creating the > key informational models: > > 1)I2RS RIB Information model > > 2)I2RS FB-RIB informational model (under WG Adoption) > > 3)I2RS generic network model (draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-02 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo/>) > – which has formed the basis for most of the I2RS, TEAS and CCAMP > ideas on models. > > Therefore, I think we followed the charter. > > What we really need to revise is the abstract. To bring the > expectations for the architecture closer to task 1. > > *How about changing the abstract to: * > > This document describes the IETF architecture for a standard, > > programmatic interface for state transfer in and out of the Internet > > routing system. It describes the high-level architecture, the building > > blocks of this high-level architecture, and their interfaces with > > particular focus on those to be standardized > > as part of the Interface to Routing System (I2RS). > That's an improvement. At least, it removes the discrepancy between the charter description and the previous draft abstract. Regards, Benoit > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 9:07 AM > To: Benoit Claise; Susan Hares; 'The IESG' > Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; mach.chen@huawei.com; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; > draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture@ietf.org; Fred@cisco.com > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on > draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13: (with COMMENT) > > Now I understand your confusion. > > Putting aside the abstract, I thought we were focused om task 1 (from > the charter) in writing. I think we probably crept into task 2, > resulting in a document which is confusing about its scope. > > Not sure how to resolve this. > > Yours, > > Joel > > On 3/24/16 9:03 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > > Joel, > > > > > > Thanks, that's helpful. > > > > > > 1. Let's look at the charter > > > > > > The I2RS working group works to develop a high-level > architecture that > > > describes the basic building-blocks necessary to enable the specific > > > use > > > cases, and that will lead to an understanding of the abstract > > > informational models and requirements for encodings and protocols > > > for the I2RS interfaces. > > > > > > 2. Let's review the draft abstract > > > > > > This document describes the IETF architecture for a standard, > > > programmatic interface for state transfer in and out of the > Internet > > > routing system. It describes the basic architecture, the > components, > > > and their interfaces with particular focus on those to be > > > standardized as part of the Interface to Routing System (I2RS). > > > > > > Reading 1., I understand your point of view. > > > However, I read 2. as this draft is about "we are using pieces X, Y, > > > and Z, in ways A, B, and C, to solve the I2RS problem." > > > I reviewed the draft content looking for 1., and could not find it. > > > > > > Do you understand my confusion? > > > > > > Regards, Benoit > > >> Benoit, you seem to be looking for a level of specificity in the > > >> architecture that the working group never intended. > > >> The charter calls for a high level architecture. > > >> > > >> I believe your comment calls out an interesting gap in the charter, > > >> as there is no document called out which actually says "we are using > > >> pieces X, Y, and Z, in ways A, B, and C, to solve the I2RS problem." > > >> > > >> We could have tried to use the architecture document for that, but > > >> the intention was to use the architecture document to guide the > > >> selection of protocol and mechanisms. > > >> > > >> Yours, > > >> Joel > > >> > > >> On 3/24/16 6:53 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > >>> Sue, > > >>> > > >>>> >Two of the existing protocols which the > > >>>> > which may be re-used are NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF > > >>>> > [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]. > > >>>> > > >>>>> editorial "may be reused". / I will check with RFC editor (some > > >>>>> people say > > >>>> reused /re-used). > > >>>> > > >>>>> What does it mean? I was hoping that an architecture documents > > >>>>> would at > > >>>> least tell me which protocols are used. > > >>>>> On my side this architecture is flexible (NETCONF or RESTCONF), > > >>>>> on the > > >>>> other side unclear (YANG 1.0 or > > >>>>> YANG1.1), and in some cases, a complete specification (for example > > >>>>> the > > >>>> notification) > > >>>> > > >>>> Sue: NETCONF and RESTCONF will be supported as part of the I2RS > > >>>> protocols. > > >>>> The architecture does out rule out other data transfer protocols, > > >>>> but says the WG will design I2RS as a higher level protocol that > > >>>> combines other protocols (NETCONF/RESTCONF + x). > > >>> This is what I could not understand with the draft sentence: "Two of > > >>> the existing protocols which the which may _be re-used_ are NETCONF > > >>> [RFC6241] and RESTCONF > [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]." > > >>> Sure many things could be reused. I'm expecting from an architecture > > >>> document to explain which pieces are used and how they are used. > > >>>> The I2RS requirements documents and protocol strawman will state is > > >>>> if any other protocols will be used for a particular version of > > >>>> I2RS with a particular scope for data modules. > > >>> Probably, my issue stems from the fact that I2RS produces an > > >>> architecture before fixing requirements. > > >>>> > > >>>> I am sorry if this is not what you excepted, but it was my > > >>>> direction from my AD on how to approach this work. > > >>>> > > >>>> At this time, we are closing in on the last of the requirements > > >>>> documents - the requirements for other data flows. > > >>>> draft-hares-i2rs-dataflow-req-02 that gives the potential scope of > > >>>> data flows, but IMO the first version of the I2RS is likely to stay > > >>>> with just NETCONF/RESTCONF with ephemeral state, push pub/sub > > >>>> support, syslog module library, and some yang changes. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> To handle I2RS Agent failure, the I2RS Agent must use two > > >>>>> different > > >>>> notifications. > > >>>>> NOTIFICATION_I2RS_AGENT_STARTING: This notification signals to the > > >>>>> I2RS Client(s) that the associated I2RS Agent has > > >>>>> started. It > > >>>>> includes an agent-boot-count that indicates how many > > >>>>> times the > > >>>>> I2RS Agent has restarted since the associated routing > > >>>>> element > > >>>>> restarted. The agent-boot-count allows an I2RS Client to > > >>>>> determine if the I2RS Agent has restarted. (Note: This > > >>>>> notification will be only transmitted to I2RS clients > > >>>>> which are > > >>>>> know in some way after a reboot.) > > >>> No comment on "the I2RS Agent _must _use two different notifications"? > > >>> This one is clear spec. > > >>>>> - editorial: > > >>>>> Optionally, a routing element may permit a priority to be to > be.... > > >>>>> For the case when the I2RS ephemeral state always wins for a data > > >>>>> model, if there is an I2RS ephemeral state value it is installed > > >>>>> instead of the local configuration state. > > >>>>> Again, I read that sentence multiple times, and could not > > >>>>> understand it > > >>>> Sue: Reasonable editorial comment. This was added to address > > >>>> another comment, But it looks like we broken something. Text > > >>>> change below. > > >>>> > > >>>> Old/ Optionally, a routing element may permit a priority to be > to be > > >>>> configured on the device for the Local Configuration mechanism > > >>>> interaction with the I2RS model. The policy mechanism would > > >>>> compare > > >>>> the I2RS client's priority with that priority assigned to the > Local > > >>>> Configuration in order to determine whether Local > Configuration or > > >>>> I2RS wins. > > >>>> > > >>>> For the case when the I2RS ephemeral state always wins for a data > > >>>> model, if there is an I2RS ephemeral state value it is installed > > >>>> instead of the local configuration state. The local > configuration > > >>>> information is stored so that if/when I2RS client removes I2RS > > >>>> ephemeral state the local configuration state can be restored. > > >>>> / > > >>>> New: > > >>>> Optionally, a routing element may permit a priority to be to be > > >>> to be to be > > >>>> configured on the device for the Local Configuration mechanism > > >>>> interaction with the I2RS model. The policy mechanism would > > >>>> compare > > >>>> the I2RS client's priority with that priority assigned to the > Local > > >>>> Configuration in order to determine whether Local > Configuration or > > >>>> I2RS wins. > > >>>> > > >>>> For the case when the configured priority of the I2RS ephemeral > > >>>> Is higher than the Local Configuration's policy, the > > >>>> The I2RS ephemeral state value it is installed > > >>> remove "it" > > >>>> instead of the local configuration state. The local > configuration > > >>>> information is stored so that if/when I2RS client removes I2RS > > >>>> ephemeral state the local configuration state can be restored. > > >>>> / > > >>>> > > >>>>> figure 2. "The initial services included in the I2RS architecture > > >>>>> are as > > >>>> follows." > > >>>>> Are these really the initial services for I2RS. I2RS is really > > >>>>> dealing > > >>>> with all these: interfaces, policy, QoS, ... > > >>>>> Maybe I should review the I2RS charter? > > >>>> Sue: Our charter is wide, but only ephemeral layer deep. Due to > > >>>> the excellent people in the NETCONF/NETMOD, routing area (rtgwg) > > >>>> and TEAS - we are focusing on allowing ephemeral to be added to any > > >>>> data model. > > >>>> I2RS WG > > >>>> is focused first on the I2RS protocol and protocol independent > modules. > > >>>> After this, I2RS purpose is to simply support other WGs in creating > > >>>> data modules with ephemeral state. > > >>>> > > >>>>> The I2RS protocol may need to use several underlying > > >>>>> transports (TCP, > > >>>> SCTP > > >>>>> (stream control transport protocol), DCCP (Datagram Congestion > > >>>>> Control Protocol)), with suitable authentication and integrity > > >>>>> protection mechanisms > > >>>>> Do you really want to have define transports? > > >>>> Sue: We indicate that I2RS will use these protocols. Each protocol > > >>>> we mention has to be then validated with requirements (see protocol > > >>>> security requirement and security environment requirements). > > >>>> > > >>> So I2RS will publish a second architecture doc when the requirements > > >>> are validated and the protocols (transport, config, notifications) > > >>> are finally selected? > > >>> > > >>> Regards, Benoit > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> i2rs mailing list > > >>> i2rs@ietf.org <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org> > > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > >>> > > >> . > > >> > > > >
- [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf… Benoit Claise
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Benoit Claise
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Benoit Claise
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-… Benoit Claise