Re: [RTG-DIR] [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-08

[Joe Clarke <[e-mail]>]

On 5/11/16 17:39, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
> Joe -
>
> Yes - this looks better to me.
>
> What about the "shadow boxes" for Applications/Clients?

Do you have an example draft I could look at for that?

Joe

>
>    Les
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 8:19 AM
>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-08
>>
>> On 5/10/16 18:04, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>> Joe -
>>>
>>> Apologies for the delayed response. I am a victim of my own email
>>> infilters. :-( Inline.
>>
>> Thanks, Les.  Have a look at
>> https://www.marcuscom.com/draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability.txt-from-09-
>> 10.diff.html
>> .  I added a new line to show the flow in both directions.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
>>>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 10:44 AM
>>>> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg); [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-08
>>>>
>>>> On 4/27/16 17:39, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
>>>>> Summary:  This document is a well written document - easy to
>> understand.
>>>>> My compliments to the authors. I believe there is one minor issue
>>>>> which I would like to see addressed before publication.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your comments and feedback, Les.  Please see below for
>>>> some replies and questions.
>>>>
>>>>> In Section 5.2 there is a definition of the information which is
>>>>> required to be kept by an I2RS Agent for each I2RS interaction. I
>>>>> would like to see the addition of "Request State" into this list.
>>>>> Operationally each request could be in one of the following states:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *         Enqueued (or pending if you prefer)
>>>>>
>>>>> *         In process
>>>>>
>>>>> *         Completed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The lack of such a state seems to imply that both the queue time and
>>>>> the processing time are insignificant. While I think this may be the
>>>>> case for many requests, it will not always be the case. In queue
>>>>> time may be lengthy due to other load on the Agent. Also, some
>>>>> requests - particularly destructive requests which involve cleanup
>>>>> of resources - may take a significant amount of time to complete.
>>>>
>>>> Good observation.  Traceability was aimed mainly at the termination
>>>> of the request, but I like the idea of tracing the state machine.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Along with this an additional timestamp - Processing Initiated -
>>>>> would be useful to indicate when processing of the request actually
>> began.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know we need a new timestamp.  Perhaps we just need to
>> rename
>>>> "Request Timestamp" and "Result Timestamp" to "Start Timestamp" and
>>>> "End Timestamp" to denote the time within the current state.  What do
>>>> you think?
>>>
>>> [Les:] My intent was to log the time at which the request began processing
>> so that you can see whether a long delay in completion was due to enqueue
>> delay or actual lengthy processing time. I am not adamant about this so if you
>> want to stay with the two timestamps that is OK.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> s/Some notable elements on the architecture/ Some notable elements
>>>>> of the architecture
>>>>
>>>> Fixed.  Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not clear to me why Application IDs start at 0 but Client IDs start at 1.
>>>>
>>>> Ah.  The numbers there are not IDs.  They are the number of actual
>>>> things in the boxes above.  For Applications, there may be 0 to N for
>>>> a given client.  For Clients, you need at least 1.  Does that make sense?
>>>>
>>> [Les:] Maybe you want to use "shadows" on the boxes to indicate there
>> can be multiple Application boxes and multiple Client boxes?
>>> What you say makes sense but I do not intuit that when I look at the ASSCII
>> art.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Figure 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the text "Op Data V" between I2RS Agent box and Routing System
>>>>> box intentional?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  The 'V' is meant to be an arrow head pointed down.  The request
>>>> and data go from Client to Agent whereas the Response goes from Agent
>>>> to Client.
>>>>
>>>> We are open to suggestions on how to make this clearer.
>>>
>>> [Les:] I think it would be clearer if you had two lines - one flowing down
>> associated with the Op Data and one flowing up with the result.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 5.2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondary Identity
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is defined to be "opaque" yet if not provided the agent is
>>>>> supposed to insert "an UNAVAILABLE value". This seems to be a
>>>>> contradiction unless we have a publicly defined value that clients
>>>>> are prohibited from using. Absent that you would need a "Secondary
>> Identity Valid" indicator.
>>>>
>>>> Good observation.  I think it's fine to say that this field must be
>>>> logged.  If there is no application, then the field will be logged as
>>>> empty.  If there is an application, then whatever value is provided
>>>> will be logged.
>>>>
>>>> Do you feel strongly that we need a field to indicate Application Present?
>>>>
>>> [Les:] I am fine w your changes.
>>>
>>>    Les
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 7.4
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> s/establish an vendor-agnostic/establish a vendor-agnostic
>>>>
>>>> Fixed.  Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>