Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments

[Thomas Nadeau <[e-mail]>]

The slides can be found here:

http://www.lucidvision.com/draft-ward-irs-framework-00.pptx 

On Aug 8, 2012:7:14 PM, at 7:14 PM, Lin Han <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Similar confusion by wisely avoidance -:)
> 
> If possible, Someone can draw a simple picture of IRS location in a router with existence of other components.
> 
> Also, I think people are confused by the comparison with SDN and OF. More clarification will be helpful.
> 
> Lin 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:41 PM
> To: Thomas Nadeau; Lenny Giuliano; Alia Atlas
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] IRS comments
> 
> 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: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> To: Lenny Giuliano; Alia Atlas
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> 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" <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> irs-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>