Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net> Tue, 31 July 2012 01:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ggrammel@juniper.net>
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 0D60111E80F2 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.547, 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 OH5K2LjX3CIF for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4257411E80D5 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBc3+WL3GvP39CLpSuOmEYlR6asfTjfF@postini.com; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:42:19 PDT
Received: from emailfeemea1.jnpr.net (172.26.192.140) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:40:59 -0700
Received: from p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net ([172.26.192.150]) by emailfeemea1.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 02:40:56 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 02:40:56 +0100
Message-ID: <812700A304640D4292205D5E83FC59E1061C211D@p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: IRS comments
Thread-Index: Ac1utoJXMLn1Fv5cTmO9ZkEBmEbA7gABwUJe
From: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@juniper.net>, Lenny Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2012 01:40:56.0715 (UTC) FILETIME=[87A3DDB0:01CD6EBD]
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:42:20 -0000

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: irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org <irs-discuss-bounces@ietf.org>;
To: Lenny Giuliano; Alia Atlas
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org <irs-discuss@ietf.org>;
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" <lenny@juniper.net>; 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
irs-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss