Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to 8/15)
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Sun, 28 August 2016 15:37 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E713012B010 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 kbX1Jb_octjf for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A548512B00B for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=74.43.47.166;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'Joe Clarke' <jclarke@cisco.com>, i2rs@ietf.org
References: <00b801d1ecc0$594b0620$0be11260$@ndzh.com> <85dccb29-d395-e206-e53d-42e27e3300a0@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <85dccb29-d395-e206-e53d-42e27e3300a0@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:35:47 -0400
Message-ID: <020801d20141$d9acd3d0$8d067b70$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKK2u9RuXRaZ/qKcZ/TddJhjST0/QFB/MGCnuK1AHA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/6ZCvMXw6LhhKkRB6m8dC-dliFw8>
Cc: russ@riw.us, 'Alia Atlas' <akatlas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to 8/15)
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 15:37:09 -0000
Joe: I'm sorry I missed responding you on August 2nd. It appears I wrote the message and then did not send it. Please see comments below. All changes except the ephemeral state--> ephemeral configuration work for me (WFM). Would you take a moment to look at that point, and then I will release a version with the changes. Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 12:38 PM To: Susan Hares; i2rs@ietf.org Cc: russ@riw.us; 'Alia Atlas' Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.txt (8/2 to 8/15) On 8/2/16 09:18, Susan Hares wrote: >> This begins a 2 week WG LC on draft-i2rs-ephemeral-state-15.txt. This >> draft received a "hum" of consensus at IETF 96, and we are now taking >> the final text to a WG Last Call. Please send your comments on the >> requirements to the WG list. >I think this is good. A general comment I have is that "ephemeral state" is used in a number of places where I think "ephemeral configuration" should be used. >This may be a nit, but the device has one state that is dictated by the various configuration types and the operational state. This was raised in BA in the meetings >as well. >My recommendation is to replace "ephemeral state" with "ephemeral >configuration". It's not a show-stopper the way it is, but I think the >latter is a bit clearer. We had agreed that "ephemeral state" as what is defined in section 3. Do you think clarifying this in the text would be better: Old/Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including both ephemeral configured state and operational state. / New/Ephemeral state is defined as potentially including in a data model ephemeral configuration state and operational state which is flagged as ephemeral./ Without this explicit comment, Juergen did not consider Ephemeral-REQ--01 thru Ephemeral-REQ-04 to be specific enough. >One nit I notice is a mixed use of Client/client Agent/agent. Per the last round of RFCs, we are normalizing on client and agent (lowercase). I will fix in version-16. You are correct. After we agree upon the use of ephemeral state. >Section 7, bullet 2: This text reads strangely: > >OLD TEXT: > >The I2RS protocol MUST support the > ability to have data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and not > the effective priority of the I2RS client at the time the data > node is stored. >PROPOSED NEW TEXT: > >The I2RS protocol MUST support the ability to have data nodes store I2RS client identity and not the effective priority of the I2RS client at > the time the data node is stored. Warning: I am re-writing the ephemeral-protocol-security-requirements so, the reference in bullet may change. You new text works for me. >Section 8: I2RS is written "I2SR" I will fix in version -16 of the text. Thank you. >Section 8: This text is odd >OLD TEXT: >multiple operations in one or more messages handling can handle > errors within the set of operations in many ways. >I'm stumped. This doesn't read as a requirement per se. Yes, the I2RS protocol can support multiple operations within one message or multiple messages. Based >on the fact that atomicity is not provided, an error in one message will have no effect on other messages, even if they are related. So maybe: >PROPOSED NEW TEXT: > >multiple operations in one or more messages; though errors in one message or operation will have no effect on other messages or commands even if they are >related Works for me (WFM): The complete sentences would be: As part of this requirement, the I2SR protocol should support: - multiple operations in one or more messages; though errors in one message or operation will have no effect on other messages or commands even if they are related. - No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be inserted into the I2RS ephemeral state. >Section 9: OLD TEXT: >requirements SHOULD be understood to be expanded to to include > >NEW TEXT: > >requirements SHOULD be understood to be expanded to include Works for me (WFM). If you confirm _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Russ White
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Joe Clarke
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Linda Dunbar
- [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-15.t… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Joe Clarke
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Joe Clarke
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] 2 Week WG LC on draft-ephemeral-state-… Susan Hares