Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

[Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>]

[Re-adding IRS]

	Thank you for reviewing and the comments. We will incorporate the edits
in the next rev.

	--Tom


On 7/30/12 5:04 PM, "Lenny Giuliano" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>Minor points:
>
>-section 4, para 2, 3rd sentence, "Howeve,r"
>
>-4.1.3 "There is no bidirectional programmatic interface to add, modify,
>    remove or read state from the multicast RIB."
> 	-How is this unique to mcast?  Couldn't you say the same thing
> 	about unicast?
>
>-4.1.3 "The multicast state added need not match to well-known protocol
>    installed state.  For instance, traffic received on an specified set,
>    or all, interfaces that is destined to a particular prefix from all
>    sources or a particular prefix could be subject to the specified
>    replication."
> 	-Not clear to me at all what this para is saying.
>
>-"IRS"- you may want to select a different acronym that isn't related to
>something as unpopular as taxation (something we learned with AMT).
>Maybe 
>RSI instead...
>
>Overall, I found the doc to be clearly written and straightforward.
>Sounds like Openflow for routers.  Not sure if it's intentional that you
>didn't mention Openflow, but it did seem like an elephant in the room as
>I 
>was reading thru.  Also, I did wonder what was new and novel here, as
>this 
>sounded like our SDK which has been around for years.
>
>
>-Lenny