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

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

OK, thanks for your prompt response!

Best regards,
Mach

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtg-dir [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 7:10 PM
> To: Mach Chen; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt
> 
> Mach:
> 
> Thank you for the review.   It is very helpful to the I2RS Work.  The draft was
> changed to standards track after the information tracker was initialized.  I will
> work with Alia Atlas to get this changed.
> 
> As for the rest of the comments, the authors (Joe, Gonzalo or Carlos) will
> answer.
> 
> Sue
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mach Chen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2016 3:10 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
> Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they
> pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request.
> The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For
> more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
> 
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
> be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
> comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
> updating the draft.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-06.txt
>  Reviewer: Mach Chen
>  Review Date: 2016/1/18
>  IETF LC End Date:
>  Intended Status: Standard Track
> 
> Summary:
>  I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be
> resolved before publication.
> 
> Comments:
>  The document is well written and easy to read.
> 
> 
> Minor Issues:
> 
> 1.
> The draft Intended status shows: Standards Track, but the Intended RFC status
> in the datatracker is "Informational". I think the latter is true, right? If so,
> please update it accordingly.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Mach