Re: [i2rs] Results of WG Adoption Call:draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

I definitely want to keep a focus on getting the use-cases better
articulated.  I've been beating that drum for over 6 months now - heck,
about a year.  We do have some reasonable individual drafts that describe
fairly well various use-cases.  As usual, different are interesting to
different people.

The WG has a very tight schedule in terms of milestones - and we need to
make progress on those even while we continue to refine the use-cases.

The problem-statement, architecture, RIB info model, and topology info
models are all basic constructs that help feed multiple use-cases and help
define what I2RS is.   Do you have particular concerns on any of those
documents?  Could you start a separate thread (so it is seen) and we can
work on those concerns?

Do you have thoughts on the use-cases?  Is a particular one interesting to
you?  Can you help with defining it better or raising the concerns and
issues?  That is exactly the kind of conversations we should be having on
the I2RS mailing list!

Regards,
Alia


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:31 PM, t.petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russ White" <[e-mail]>
> To: "'Keyur Patel (keyupate)'" <[e-mail]>; "'Alia Atlas'"
> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:29 PM
> >
> > > I'm a bit confused at this point about when those decisions were
> changed,
> > > and how we intend to proceed.
> >
> > I have one possible suggestion, after looking at the structure of the
> drafts
> > again. What I think we might want to do is to pull the bgp use cases
> from
> > draft-white to bolster the bgp use cases draft, moving the bgp use
> cases
> > draft to an editor/contributor format (since it already has a lot of
> co's).
> > The remaining use cases can be put into a rib uses cases draft, where
> we can
> > collect all the various "routing protocol agnostic" use cases. Again,
> we
> > could move this to editor/contributor --I'll be happy to hold the
> editor
> > baton for this new draft.
> >
> > There may be some question about what fits where (are all the bgp uses
> > really limited to bgp? Do we want a separate overlay use cases, or
> should
> > these fall into the protocol related draft they work with?), but I
> think
> > this is a workable model to get all the use cases organized into a
> > reasonable set of drafts that can be added to, etc., until the WG gets
> to
> > the point of having a 'first set' of use cases on the table. After
> this
> > initial batch is actually published, then it's going to be better to
> > continue with individual drafts for individual use cases, rather than
> > bis'ing this set, I think.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Russ
>
> The recurring thought I have is that we are pressing on with design -
> architecture, info-model etc - and have not, AFAIK, agreed requirements,
> which the use cases should do, or at least bring out into the open.  So
> I would oppose the adoption of any design document until the
> requirements have greater clarity.
>
> Your comment about boiling oceans I see rather as boiling separate
> lakes, each lake being firmly founded on a different view of use cases,
> and I think that that has emerged in the discussion of the info-model.
>
> So, for me, use cases comes first, one document preferred, more than one
> ok; the rest should wait.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> >
> > Russ
>
>
>