Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

[Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>]

On 8/8/12 7:14 PM, "Lin Han" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Similar confusion by wisely avoidance -:)
>
>If possible, Someone can draw a simple picture of IRS location in a
>router with existence of other components.

	Did you see the slides that Alia sent out from the IETF Presentation?
Unicast me if not and I will get them to you.

>Also, I think people are confused by the comparison with SDN and OF. More
>clarification will be helpful.

	For that, we really should set up some internal tech talk thing. Slides
can help, but having a decent presentation on this would go a long way.
Let me see what we can do in this regard.

	--Tom


>
>Lin 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
>Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:41 PM
>To: Thomas Nadeau; Lenny Giuliano; Alia Atlas
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>
>Tom,
>
>It is confusing to understand whether IRS belongs to a new network
>management plane or if it's more of a control plane extension. The draft
>wisely avoids this classification.
>To me IRS appears to be a completely different beast which should best be
> characterized as 'Network Programming Plane' NPP.
>It neither aims to do full provisioning (as a management plane would do)
>nor aims to replace routing (as a control plane would do).
>Hence we better name the baby NPP -- thereby avoiding any linkage to
>taxation.
>
>
>Gert
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>To: Lenny Giuliano; Alia Atlas
>Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Tue Jul 31 01:50:40 2012
>Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
>
>
>[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
>
>_______________________________________________
>irs-discuss mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>_______________________________________________
>irs-discuss mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss