Re: [irs-discuss] Rough Draft IRS Charter

Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Mon, 22 October 2012 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rraszuk@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 E8F6E21F8A71 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.862
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RX-hsPGjRUK4 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C28921F8A6E for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so4789697iec.31 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=KJ9Ns9K4IvDOTFnFV1xcAmCngF1Ig+6Z31eBDcfnWas=; b=OHhhjTUx84HqqzBmDOCzxwTUF6nLooCpSZrowsb7QHV+j1JbXdQDA6p0n3CjXehRqm wXKHGangmDG8Mi9zk9h4QLD0xZ1LutOT8lUcNTSlU3rdF7IfpOI6kP/e3aB7pZuWhF+J WM7Wj0Hze6EX0mIf7JifR+pfU0wi4DhQ04HqIVWTlSR0Z5KVaFGebEdJxkroBbYRBvwp tKL9GDcAYEcThhTnqGuxMVxPdUqK7pMJSix219ySLhpF0SZz+NwGm8ZTxqm+UxDLn4Oy ZFYMKP6QH6aZ5N/HzLGdzzxLu3ijiYAISUqvDluNuEbyuBrRDVnBe6e02jDLgohgq9ik RiDQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.53.199 with SMTP id d7mr10199048igp.47.1350928633917; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: rraszuk@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.68.133 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5085874F.1090806@riw.us>
References: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB17704C7EC9FE484@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <5085874F.1090806@riw.us>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:57:13 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8oE4g39Mrbv7pCY83IGTyGh1-o8
Message-ID: <CA+b+ERmvqjSbSLGY3Qy9JeM6y=QaKmD8zJgD8YxdeE53OqUoDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
To: Russ White <russw@riw.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Rough Draft IRS Charter
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: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:57:15 -0000

It may be also worth to document the conflict resolution mechanism
when "fast path" contradicts with "slow path" configurations ...

r.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Russ White <russw@riw.us> wrote:
>
> I think this has already been brought up on the list once before, but
> I'd just like to repeat my concerns on it:
>
> ==
> Thus, the IRS is a "fast path" that can be used to program routing and
> policy state in a router using operational paradigms familiar to
> operators of traditional distributed devices. This differs from the
> programmatic "slow state" that is commonly a device's configuration
> interface because those mechanisms impose many transactional mechanisms
> and requirements, that may slow down the interaction.
> ==
>
> Describing the CLI or other existing interfaces as the "slow path," and
> the proposed as the "fast path," is problematic. First, it implies that
> there is a specific path already available into all control plane
> devices, and that single path is "too slow," for some meaning of "too
> slow." Second, it implies, from the start, that we need new path, rather
> than a possible structure around existing paths that we can use to make
> sense of the routing system as a whole.
>
> I think 2a needs to be better defined so it doesn't overlap with 2c, or
> 2c needs to be made a part of 2a in some way (?).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Russ
>
>
>
> --
> <><
> riwhite@verisign.com
> russw@riw.us
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> irs-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss