Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

Thomas Nadeau <> Tue, 31 July 2012 00:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A2121F8539 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:53:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.381
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.381 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXbTNQJqftBN for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1C721F8530 for <>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:53:01 PDT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:50:43 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:50:42 -0400
From: Thomas Nadeau <>
To: Lenny Giuliano <>, Alia Atlas <>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:50:40 -0400
Thread-Topic: IRS comments
Thread-Index: Ac1utoJXMLn1Fv5cTmO9ZkEBmEbA7g==
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:53:04 -0000

[Re-adding IRS]

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


On 7/30/12 5:04 PM, "Lenny Giuliano" <> 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).
>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
>was reading thru.  Also, I did wonder what was new and novel here, as
>sounded like our SDK which has been around for years.