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

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Tue, 19 January 2016 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6C01B2A79; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:56:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0m558rsiO0V6; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3441B2A7F; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 02:56:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2287; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1453200961; x=1454410561; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ATMpT9TjvxvD6IsDe0uQ9K7Lzc57f9T0ruvEYZtQew8=; b=R283r/HdS60ddKm7i9En283AloxKTK/pY13lGTfv9uYE4FLsK1sjJarY +8WEBO8JGn4+zoobBYxnxO01fpHa/wCo8MFj30PuFW5X3dM6Kjk44spJG rDkvxSnIQ+NBBKsP009ItIo4IRhTGGQofp6omDTKO/MU/74+Ml2UeX9EO c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CsBAAfFZ5W/xbLJq1VCYQMbYhWs1mBYhgKhW0CgXgSAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEDAQEBASAVNgoBEAsYAgIFFgsCAgkDAgECARUwBgEMBgIBAYgPCA6uYJACAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEVBIEAhVWEf4Qtg0eBSQEEjjmIYY1fgV6HTIVXimyDcSkBOoQnIDSGbgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,316,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="648614347"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jan 2016 10:55:58 +0000
Received: from [10.230.72.102] ([10.230.72.102]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u0JAtwG4013955; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:55:58 GMT
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org" <rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B6CDB15@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Message-ID: <569E163E.5060807@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 05:55:58 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE28B6CDB15@SZXEMA510-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Hq-PENFhtc8gjiCoCehet4EigFM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:13:01 -0800
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability.all@tools.ietf.org>, "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:56:03 -0000

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
>