Re: [irs-discuss] Rough Draft IRS Charter

[Ross Callon <[e-mail]>]

Speaking only for myself as an individual: 

I agree that this paragraph of the draft WG charter is a problem. For one thing the definition of "Slow Path" and "Fast Path" are not clear, and overlap with implementation issues as well as other issues. 

One option would be to just drop this paragraph. To me the charter hangs together fine without it. 

One alternative: Do we want to say something along the lines of "whatever solutions are selected by the WG will not preclude "fast path" low-overhead access to the routing system"? This would encourage the WG to think about what is needed to allow low-overhead access to data in the routers (both setting and reading), but would not in the charter specify what actually needs to be done to allow this. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Russ White
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:50 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] Rough Draft IRS Charter


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



-- 
<><
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
_______________________________________________
irs-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss