IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted

James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <james.kempf@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F62B11E81EC for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.973
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.973 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.626, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y-yLOCIiqx3i for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF86D11E81EB for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6UMB7a7005055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:11:20 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.135]) by eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) with mapi; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:11:17 -0400
From: James Kempf <james.kempf@ericsson.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:11:16 -0400
Thread-Topic: IRS Problem Statement Posted
Thread-Index: Ac1uf6vUr0RoAYPERve+GHr5XPQ6JgAIAMEA
Message-ID: <CE39F5249064D946AA3535E63A014619656FB98703@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
References: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <CC3C1DEF.28D6%tnadeau@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 22:11:22 -0000

I don't understand why streaming is specified in this draft. And I don't understand why this draft isn't put in the Forces framework. Forces is a framework explicitedly designed for device to controller communication. Its major drawback it that it is a framework with a hole in the middle, in that there are no specified devices. This draft would fill that hole.

I don't think it is necessary to have a problem statement for router state update. Forces has already established that splitting the control plane into a separate device is, in some cases, an attractive design option. So I think this should be submitted to the Forces working group, or, at least, recast in the Forces framework.

		jak

> -----Original Message-----
> From: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:18 AM
> To: irs-discuss@ietf.org
> Subject: [irs-discuss] IRS Problem Statement Posted
> 
> 
> 
> Please review and discuss.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Tom, Alia, Ward
> 
> 
> http://lucidvision.com/draft-atlas-irs-problem-statement-00.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email