Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 31 July 2012 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.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 16DC821F8508 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 mProl7Xz6JQa for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C3621F8505 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so5980563ggn.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1/gqsD9pVPqBFQyUqTAu+e0TsGIqwGRREfqhYOh48Xw=; b=gfUXvJlv76yuBOo1P+Z5QRUo8lW3Un2u4h9DDUxbT/rtuRZkoHB68ZlqTlburhJwwd jMqLvVfTMi+1fzYmMzQKXa6KkvsUiD1sz4MlF0GnWNYcr9yHtunl3YBjqcWN3z07Bkv3 437Dht/vJ4SRN8liFdsX0fTi32x7Du0CclveU2NFm7yqs5TQU0gGDwx16Jz0psdY5zIT AMKXjrApMzDDdtS2i6gNfFK2j4yhewjheUd5m38xkqucfetkscoOWq2wX/e7R+zaIg5W CEJFrAKQKY6yomNcWD/2idOvK74kIguggfK+PtXp0UqpS/6gjVfpIrF34iZnDvTfQBEr EkyQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.158.226 with SMTP id wx2mr478308igb.18.1343699075155; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.34.169 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <812700A304640D4292205D5E83FC59E1061C211D@p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net>
References: <812700A304640D4292205D5E83FC59E1061C211D@p-embx01-eq.jnpr.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 21:44:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcqSqERxZg9+nV4Y90oY+cLQCuQbH7cZJqJB90-dbJCjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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 01:44:37 -0000

We can consider other namings, whether NPP or RSI or other suggestions.

I think we still have a bit of time and discussion for the
requirements before we have to finalize that.

Alia

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>; wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss