Re: [irs-discuss] Rough Draft IRS Charter

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 26 October 2012 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 4FAD021F8646 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.274, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O+mlaeiS44F3 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85AFF21F8639 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fl11so3354621vcb.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=msntxyU6Kl/q8d+ro5K5EMp/0s/b5W2kqNh2phdCAck=; b=oaEbN9JiibYCJrkrPOx2vEUQHN/jAtDpE2HIIX3Vy2KapBHqsIT5a3mo2vn+5R9fQp rb71uhuU7gtqWKOqn5ulPu+TGrka4ehBJDCN4eqKzyRlXNIyw5emO8IN7m9wYJR7rZVM jI0rElq5fDrquLeWN5K+/yZVGTKAxiaX4NOJK2Bl0CpDdGPnUlCP3TdkICvnfG+XiDkp i5dKfwLgDxCYeSgIg+RWTR4xKZfhSxLV4tAyAw88FmmPujaTciMbH3U8JnP8b7bFtBga NHucmuLPo24Hy/Vmr06xdlwJNxV5dSJRQcN0FIFIYEYG57XpXCbZ2296ZQ8E/7E0PEvV 9Ewg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.27.2 with SMTP id p2mr30367486vdg.85.1351263302992; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.163.138 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5085874F.1090806@riw.us>
References: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C7EC9FE484@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <5085874F.1090806@riw.us>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:55:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQz=VZhYFR8gz_KU4K6QHG7pebnCpVhgouQhbY+yzjmyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: Russ White <russw@riw.us>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d00742c44bd04ccf78184
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmzbsuh7x2c/mb40iC+qzWEDW/GIfhvsi3jUNOMU9OqRG1GkHtl9jY8knb2qimCD4G60CBq
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Rough Draft IRS Charter
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: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:55:04 -0000

Hi,

This charter text is very puzzling:

     ..those mechanisms impose many transactional mechanisms
    and requirements, that may slow down the interaction

What are these "slow path" mechanisms that IRS will not need?


Andy


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Russ White <russw@riw.us> wrote:

>
> I think this has already been brought up on the list once before, but
> I'd just like to repeat my concerns on it:
>
> ==
> Thus, the IRS is a "fast path" that can be used to program routing and
> policy state in a router using operational paradigms familiar to
> operators of traditional distributed devices. This differs from the
> programmatic "slow state" that is commonly a device's configuration
> interface because those mechanisms impose many transactional mechanisms
> and requirements, that may slow down the interaction.
> ==
>
> Describing the CLI or other existing interfaces as the "slow path," and
> the proposed as the "fast path," is problematic. First, it implies that
> there is a specific path already available into all control plane
> devices, and that single path is "too slow," for some meaning of "too
> slow." Second, it implies, from the start, that we need new path, rather
> than a possible structure around existing paths that we can use to make
> sense of the routing system as a whole.
>
> I think 2a needs to be better defined so it doesn't overlap with 2c, or
> 2c needs to be made a part of 2a in some way (?).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> --
> <><
> riwhite@verisign.com
> russw@riw.us
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>