Re: [RTG-DIR] [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your prompt response! 

It addresses my comments.

Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Clarke [mailto:jclarke@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 6:56 PM
> To: Mach Chen; rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability.all@tools.ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt
> 
> Thanks for your comments, Mach.  Responses inline...
> 
> On 1/18/16 03:10, Mach Chen wrote:
> > 2.
> > Section 5.2
> > Client Address:   This is the network address of the Client that
> >        connected to the Agent.  For example, this may be an IPv4 or IPv6
> >        address.  [Note: will I2RS support interactions that have no
> >        network address?  If so this field will need to be updated.]
> >
> > IMHO, the Note should be deleted for a to-be-published document. The IPv4
> and IPv6 are just examples, the description here does not exclude other
> possibilities.
> 
> Yep, good catch.
> 
> >
> >
> > 3. Section 5.2
> > Requested Operation Data:   This field comprises the data passed to
> >        the Agent to complete the desired operation.  For example, if the
> >        operation is a route add operation, the Operation Data would
> >        include the route prefix, prefix length, and next hop information
> >        to be inserted as well as the specific routing table to which the
> >        route will be added.  The operation data can also include
> >        interface information.
> >
> > Although the last sentence above is right, why do we need to emphasize the
> "interface information" here? If there is no special intention, I'd suggest to
> remove it.
> 
> Yes, we'll remove it.  The operation data field should echo the "operation
> data."  No need to be overly prescriptive here.  The example ahead of this
> sentence should suffice to illustrate the intent.
> 
> >
> >
> > 3. Section 5.2
> > Transaction ID:   The Transaction Identity is an opaque string that
> >        represents this particular operation is part of a long-running
> >        I2RS transaction that can consist of multiple...
> >
> > Here you specify that an Transaction ID is an opaque string, are there other
> possibilities (e.g., uint) ? Since this is just an information model, how the data
> type should be is specific to the data model, I'd suggest to remove the data
> type limitation from this document.
> 
> Here we were emphasizing the fact that this can be anything one could
> use to tie multiple operations together in a single transaction.
> 
> Joe
> 
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Mach
> > _______________________________________________
> > i2rs mailing list
> > i2rs@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
> >