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

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

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