Re: [irs-discuss] draft-ward-irs-framework

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 30 July 2012 22:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 C596311E80E5 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 WmtS1PrffxT1 for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449AD11E80DC for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F35558376 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AF1200B70; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net
Received: from [130.129.32.82] (dhcp-2052.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.32.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96135200B6A; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <50170BD3.3030801@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:33:55 -0400
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
References: <17897894-CD09-482F-9F1A-F01CF44DC906@lucidvision.com> <50156873.2030407@joelhalpern.com> <CAG4d1reQME_VNsS-uh5BUnAHfS0G=EQ53sdZR9Xkt=v3GVVxXA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1reQME_VNsS-uh5BUnAHfS0G=EQ53sdZR9Xkt=v3GVVxXA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: irs-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] draft-ward-irs-framework
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, 30 Jul 2012 22:33:58 -0000

Sounds good.  Thank you.
Joel

On 7/30/2012 6:19 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> Joel,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.  I think the problem-statement draft (now at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-atlas-irs-problem-statement-00)
> focuses a bit more on the problem and less on the protocol aspects.
>
> The framework does try to describe the need for data models that have
> semantic meaning included - and gives some ideas on what information
> might want to be in some of those data-models.  To get the details
> correct, I think we'll want to drive from agreed upon specific
> vertical use-cases.
>
> I do think that, assuming there is interest, we want to move forward
> to use-cases and nail down a small set of data-models to focus on, at
> least with their requirements.  There could be multiple transfer
> protocols, if we needed them, but it's quite premature to focus on the
> protocol specifics now.
>
> As for the protocol, I tried to focus on the key aspects and/or goals
> that we think the interface needs to have.  I do apologize for the
> extensive use of "streaming" in the doc - I added the key aspects part
> and obviously didn't prune out the streaming adjective everywhere.
> The intent was to to imply the asynchronous, duplex nature - not, say,
> TCP like streaming.
>
> Alia
>
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, the document could use signifiantly more clarity on
>> the problem to be solved, and the information modeling gaps that appear to
>> exist, and much less (maybe none) discussion of why a new protocol is
>> needed.  It seems to me that the descriptions of existing protocols tend to
>> be based on assumptions that are not borne out by the rest of the document.
>>
>> As an example, the assumption that the solution must be some form of
>> streaming (whatever that means) is not grounded in the document.
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel M. Halpern
>>
>>
>> On 7/29/2012 12:39 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>          We wanted to kick off the discussion here about the framework
>>> draft. What do you think? How can this be improved? Are we on the right
>>> track?
>>>
>>>          The (proposed) Framework can be found here:
>>>
>>> http://lucidvision.com/draft-ward-irs-framework-00.txt
>>>
>>>          We will be sending out a problem statement draft later today as
>>> well.
>>>
>>>          --Tom, Alia, Ward
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>