Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to 8/15)

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Sun, 28 August 2016 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@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 3ED2212D0B9 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.069
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 glMuxIYW_tzB for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A49812B043 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2856; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1472414719; x=1473624319; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mAY0awvURkl3fXhNkwAIwwrpPTDI0YdXYEyBoOXVucg=; b=OOitm152gJ1a7hNvm2QbNir0Z1YoDZSnHw8fcHG0vm31cZXnTnzIa2oh OLfaDlW0mZjgB5Ys/i2HHNHegqInvGHjjBY93ueiw8Xs8egK7HJsY1shp 6XAlz9DDj2cGo7I8OvshBK3ZrTtNhpgITb8KwfXn6lkOO0HHLylNIAQvp I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AZBgCRQ8NX/4cNJK1UCYNNAQEBAQEeg?= =?us-ascii?q?QG4d4IBhh0CgTA5EwECAQEBAQEBAV4nhGEBAQQBMgEFQQULCw4KLlcGAQwIAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?INAi8cAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR+GLoF4glWEGYYDAQSUCIVHjyuJW4V6k?= =?us-ascii?q?D0fATSCNByBaCCHAAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,592,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="144825981"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 28 Aug 2016 20:05:18 +0000
Received: from [10.24.54.169] ([10.24.54.169]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7SK5FI6021555; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:05:16 GMT
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, i2rs@ietf.org
References: <00b801d1ecc0$594b0620$0be11260$@ndzh.com> <85dccb29-d395-e206-e53d-42e27e3300a0@cisco.com> <020801d20141$d9acd3d0$8d067b70$@ndzh.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Message-ID: <3a28683e-1e65-632c-4a9d-1e77a7e4fe28@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:05:15 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <020801d20141$d9acd3d0$8d067b70$@ndzh.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/ppY7hKKTvGvEStr0HSOzhxQq3HE>
Cc: russ@riw.us, 'Alia Atlas' <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to 8/15)
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: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:05:20 -0000

On 8/28/16 11:35, Susan Hares wrote:
>> I think this is good.  A general comment I have is that "ephemeral state"
> is used in a number of places where I think "ephemeral configuration" should
> be used.  >This may be a nit, but the device has one state that is dictated
> by the various configuration types and the operational state.  This was
> raised in BA in the meetings >as well.
>
>> My recommendation is to replace "ephemeral state" with "ephemeral
>> configuration".   It's not a show-stopper the way it is, but I think the
>> latter is a bit clearer.
>
> We had agreed that "ephemeral state" as what is defined in section 3.  Do
> you think clarifying this in the text would be better:
>
> Old/Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including both ephemeral
> configured state and operational state. /
> New/Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including in a data model
> ephemeral configuration state and operational state which is flagged as
> ephemeral./
>
> Without this explicit comment, Juergen did not consider Ephemeral-REQ--01
> thru Ephemeral-REQ-04 to be specific enough.

To be clear, I think this is somewhat semantic.  A device has one state 
that is made of a number of related things.  But this terminology not a 
stopping thing for me.

In the new text above, would the following not satisfy Jürgen's comment?

/Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including in a data model
ephemeral configuration and operational state which is flagged as
ephemeral./

Note: I simply drop the second "state" as this seems a bit clearer to be 
(i.e., before it stated, essentially, that ephemeral state includes 
ephemeral state).

>> Section 7, bullet 2:  This text reads strangely:
>>
>> OLD TEXT:
>>
>> The I2RS protocol MUST support the
>>      ability to have data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and not
>>      the effective priority of the I2RS client at the time the data
>>      node is stored.
>
>> PROPOSED NEW TEXT:
>>
>> The I2RS protocol MUST support the ability to have data nodes store I2RS
> client identity and not the effective priority of the I2RS client at
>> the time the data node is stored.
>
> Warning: I am re-writing the ephemeral-protocol-security-requirements so,
> the reference in bullet may change.  You new text works for me.

Thanks and understood.

> Works for me (WFM):   The complete sentences would be:
>
> As part of this requirement, the I2SR protocol should support:

s/I2SR/I2RS/ :-)

>  - multiple operations in one or more messages; though errors in one message
> or operation will have no effect on other messages or commands even if they
> are related.
> - No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be inserted into the I2RS
> ephemeral state.

Works for me.

> If you confirm

Thanks, Sue.

Joe