Re: [i2rs] Mail regarding draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology: Modelling of L3 links supported by a L2 broadcast network

Hi Stephen, An L2 broadcast network is usually modeled with a pseudo-node and then separate links between that pseudonode and each L3 device. Please take a look at Section B.1.2 where one of the example ospf-node-attributes is a pseudonode. Regards, Alia On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 11:46 PM Stephen

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10

As is expected, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10. First I would like to thank the authors - Amit, Lixing, Nitin, Mach, Hari, and Sri - as well as the many folks who have reviewed and contributed over the years. I do have some minor comments on details of what is modele

Re: [i2rs] FW: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

redo all again due to the laptop > crashed. Updated the draft with the below comments. Couldn’t upload the > same due to max 5 author limit kicking in. > > > > Best regards, > > Amit > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, Febr

Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

gree it. I don't stall the process, I just don't give the > comments. I contributed a lot to this draft. > > Best Regards > Lixing Wang > > > 原始邮件 > 主题：Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09 > 发件人：Alia Atlas > 收

Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

ly review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09 > 发件人：Susan Hares > 收件人：'Amit Dass' ,'Alia Atlas' > 抄送：i2rs@ietf.org, > > > > Amit: > > > > Remove one of the authors. Please consider removing LIxing Wang. I > have not received an IPR statemen

Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-04

> Hi Alia, > > > > Thank you for your comments~ A new revision has been published to resolve > your comments. > > Detailed responses as below. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Yan > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com] > *Sen

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-13

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-13. First, I would like to thank the authors - Nitin, Sri, and Jan - as well as all the reviewers over the years - and, of course, Sue for her efforts to get this done. I am delighted to finally see this progressing. The

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-04

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology. First, I would like to thank the authors - Yan Zhuang, Danian Shi, Rong Gu, and Hari Ananthakrishnan - for their excellent and quick work on this document. I do have a few minor comments below, that can

Re: [i2rs] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

Hi Amit, It has been three weeks. Can you please get the update ASAP? I need to get it reviewed and into IETF Last Call. As you know, I am closing I2RS at IETF 101 - which means this draft needs to be on the March 8 telechat. That means it really should be in IETF Last Call by February 16 - and

[i2rs] Fwd: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

-- Forwarded message -- From: Alia Atlas Date: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Subject: Fwd: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors To: "rt...@ietf.org" At IETF 98 in RTGWG, I mentioned the need for clear guidelines to handle the changes coming for struct

Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

Kent, >From the 5000 foot view, this looks to me like the description changing the behavior of what a system should do. What am I missing? Thanks, Alia On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > [Xufeng] Right. If we do so, the approach will be different from RFC7223, > and requir

Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > > On 2/1/2017 2:32 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:52:25PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote: > >> Juergen, > >> > >> What precludes treating such dependencies in the same way > >> per-provisioning is handled by RFC72

[i2rs] Handling technical concerns and progressing topology models

Dear I2RS Working Group, There has been significant discussion around draft-ietf-i2rs-yang- network-topo-10 as a side-effect of IESG balloting. While the focus of the IESG concerns was on having clearly written security conside

Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

Juergen, On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 08:35:53AM -0500, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Could one of you who are saying that a writable topology model can appear > > in the regular con

Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

Could one of you who are saying that a writable topology model can appear in the regular configuration data-store please explain: How does validation at reboot work when there is dependency on learned topology data that isn't yet available? I'd prefer more technology discussion of the nuances. T

Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

Tom, Let me be absolutely clear - and this is not just directed at you, obviously. The IESG shares the various balloting positions for transparency. They are supposed to be handling specific technical concerns and objections. I am extremely disappointed in the quality of the discussion, the effo

Re: [i2rs] FW: Genart LC review: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-09

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Seems like you got it now. I don’t think we should worry about the 6 > authors at the moment. But do look at the rest. I did, of course, verify that all the authors are and have been actively involved and contributed significantly. Regards, A

Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-06

(correcting typo to send to draft authors) On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-06 > before progressing it to IETF Last Call. > > First, I would like to thank the authors and contributors of t

[i2rs] AD review of draft-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-06

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-06 before progressing it to IETF Last Call. First, I would like to thank the authors and contributors of this document for their work. Regrettably, I will not progress this document with 9 authors (one of whose email alr

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo

As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-09. First I would like to thank the authors, Alex, Jan, Hari, Nitin, Robert, & Xufeng, for their work on a very nicely written document. I do see that there are 6 authors. I am open to hearing why and how each author

Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18

group asked us not > to combine these two sections. I left these two sections intact. Does > this work for you? > > > > > > Sue > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:37 PM > *To:* i2rs@ietf.org; draft-

Re: [i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18 - REQ-12

lient a chance to deal with the issues >surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their > state. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 10/4/16 10:37 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As is customary, I have done my AD review >> o

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18

Hi, As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18. First, I would like to thank Sue and Jeff for their hard work pulling this document together in an effort to add clarity to the requirements. I do have a number of comments - many relatively minor. Assuming a f

Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

First, to be very clear. This document has WG consensus - confirmed over multiple WGLCs - in the I2RS WG. This thread is to resolve the concerns expressed by the ADs about specific aspects of this document. Second, by having a requirement for indicating in the model - whether for the whole model

Re: [i2rs] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-06: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) < i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote: > Hi Sue, > > thanks for addressing my comments! > > The only remaining one is if this doc should be published as an own RFC or > merged with the other requirement documents. I mainly wanted to raise t

Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Alissa, On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-06: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-06

First, I would like to thank the WG and the authors, Sue, Daniel, & Joel, for their work on this document. As is customary, I have done my AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-06. I have only a couple nits. I have requested an IETF Last Call and expect this to be on the te

Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ephemeral-REQ-07 (local config vs. ephemeral)

LGTM On Jul 20, 2016 5:15 PM, "Susan Hares" wrote: > Works for me! > > Sue > > -Original Message- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:56 AM > To: Joe Clarke; Susan Hares; 'Russ White'; i2rs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Comments on Ep

[i2rs] new I2RS chair: Russ White replacing Jeff Haas

I would like to announce that Russ White is replacing Jeff Haas as I2RS Chair. I would like to thank Jeff for his efforts over the years in helping I2RS progress. Regards, Alia ___ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2

Re: [i2rs] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-06

Hi Dan, Thank you very much for your review. This document is intended to be Informational; the data-tracker needed to be updated. I do have a few comments in-line. Eric, Alex, Gonzalez & Sue, please address these comments ASAP as you feel is appropriate. I do think that some clarifications will

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

Les, Thank you very much for your review. Joe, Thanks for following up. I'll get this on the IESG telechat for next Thurs. Regards, Alia On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Joe Clarke wrote: > On 4/27/16 17:39, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > >> Summary: This document is a well written doc

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-07

First, I would like to thank the authors, Joe, Carlos, and Gonzalo, for their work on this draft. I have done my AD review and find it a well-written and clear document. I did find a couple minor things to clean up. A new draft is welcome now. I have requested an IETF Last Call and placed this d

[i2rs] AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-05

First, I would like to thank Eric, Alex, and Alberto for their work on this document. As is customary, i have done my AD review of draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-05. I am advancing it to IETF Last Call but would very much appreciate it if an updated version which substantially improves the l

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

Mach, Thank you very much for your quick review. Regards, Alia On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Mach Chen wrote: > 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

Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-08.txt

-dra...@ietf.org > 发送时间: 2015年12月19日 7:06 > 收件人: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > 抄送: i2rs@ietf.org > 主题: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-08.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This dra

Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-07.txt

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : Interface to the Routing System Problem Stateme

Re: [i2rs] [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement

nk we are aligned with you that we want a fresh-updated > draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement. Alia Atlas (one of the co-author) and I > will chat within a day or so and get back to you on the nits. > > > > Sue > > > > *From:* Bitar, Nabil N [mailto:nabil.n.bi...@ve

Re: [i2rs] feedback on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-03

>From my perspective, adding encap for a next-hop in the RIB makes sense. >From one perspective, this is just putting, for instance, an MPLS label on. However, the RIB supports using additional higher-level abstractions. So - the RIB might use an interface that is to a tunnel - but the RIB may

Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

Acee, In-line, as always. On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Alia, > > From: Alia Atlas > Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 12:08 PM > To: Acee Lindem > Cc: Susan Hares , "i2rs@ietf.org" , Jeff > Haas , Jeff Tantsura > Subject

Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

Alia On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > From: Susan Hares > Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 9:57 PM > To: Acee Lindem , "i2rs@ietf.org" > Cc: Alia Atlas , Jeff Haas , Jeff > Tantsura > Subject: RE: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ie

Re: [i2rs] Conversation on Priority and Panes

Hi Russ & Andy, I certainly understand the desire for different behavior when a priority override happens. However, this is one area where the working group was extremely clear. Sue and I had ideas of store-if-not-best and handling overwrites and so on. There was a very clear push back against a

Re: [i2rs] draft-mglt-i2rs-security-environment-reqs, REQ 3

Good catch - this seems to be very aspirational and contradicts what the architecture says - which is basically that the user may cause issues. Regards, Alia On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > I've been reviewing the environment requirements, thanks for picking up > this

Re: [i2rs] quick comment on draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-00

ith connection handshake, and therefore re-association is = >> complicated to implement without restarting the connection. Note I say = >> complicated, not impossible, but I cannot see the advantage in the = >> additional complexity, especially when experience shows that additional

Re: [i2rs] quick comment on draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-00

perience shows that additional = > complexity becoming source of security flaws... > > Be goode, > > On 11 Jun 2015, at 22:11 , Alia Atlas wrote: > > > > >=20 > > Sue, > >=20 > > Thanks for writing this draft. I think it is useful to clearly =

[i2rs] quick comment on draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-00

Sue, Thanks for writing this draft. I think it is useful to clearly articulate the outside-of-I2RS behavior and protocols that are needed for the mutual authentication. I do have a couple comments on the draft. In Sec 3.1, it says "Each Identity will be linked to one secondary identity for t

Re: [i2rs] storage of priority and client ID with a node

Hi Andy, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > > > As I mentioned in the virtual interim, I'd like to explain a little > further > > about what I see as semantics and desired behavior around

[i2rs] storage of priority and client ID with a node

As I mentioned in the virtual interim, I'd like to explain a little further about what I see as semantics and desired behavior around the storing and managing of priority and client ID. First, the priority mechanism is intended to handle "error cases of colliding writes" in a predictable way that

Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Andy, > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Andy Bierman > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Susan Hares wrote: >

Re: [i2rs] draft-chen-i2rs-identifier-management-00

ocol will include an explicit reply to modification or write > > > >operations even when they fully succeed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will this cover the architecture document 7.9 transactions impact on > > ephemeral state? >

Re: [i2rs] simple rechartering underway

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:33:14AM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Juergen, > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > j.schoe

Re: [i2rs] simple rechartering underway

Juergen, On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:06:44PM -0500, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Given the excellent progress that the WG has been making - due to your > work > > and interest

[i2rs] simple rechartering underway

Given the excellent progress that the WG has been making - due to your work and interest, I have been working on a simple rechartering with Sue and Jeff. The new proposed charter is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-i2rs/. It adds the ability to work on a filter-based RIB model. It a

Re: [i2rs] I2RS topology is generic?

Hi Juergen, On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:01:35PM -0500, Alia Atlas wrote: > > > > Those interested in SUPA were told very clearly before last IETF that > > the topo

Re: [i2rs] I2RS topology is generic?

lp if the recipient isn't willing to listen. Alia On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 04:52:14PM -0500, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Hi Benoit, > > > > Yes, as is clearly articul

Re: [i2rs] I2RS topology is generic?

Hi Benoit, Yes, as is clearly articulated in the draft,it is a generic topology into which all other topology-related work should plug. I2RS and Alex are very happy to hear comments and reviews of that draft. Regards, Alia On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear Alia, > >

Re: [i2rs] I2RS charter: information model or data model (in YANG)?

Benoit, On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > The I2RS charter contains: > "Request publication of Standards Track documents specifying > information models" > "The working group is not currently chartered to develop protocols, > encoding languages, or data

Re: [i2rs] I2RS interim on 2/5/2015 at 10:00am - 11:00 ET

There was confusion with different webex sessions. The meeting is happening on the webex in this email - not what was in, at least, my calendar. It's *Join WebEx meeting* Meeting number: 640 334 334 On Thu, Feb 5, 2015

Re: [i2rs] [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement

ange to the introduction. > > > > So it looks like we have converged… > > > > -- > > Eric > > > > *From:* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@juniper.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 07, 2015 3:55 PM > *To:* Eric Gray; Alia Atlas > *Cc:* rtg-...@tools.iet

Re: [i2rs] [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement

Hi Eric, Responses in-line below (but with agreements removed). I’ll push out the slightly modified version as soon as I hear back from you. Thanks again, Alia From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.g...@ericsson.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 11:14 AM To: Alia Atlas Cc: rtg-...@tools.ietf.org

[i2rs] updated draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-05

I have posted an updated version that I believe responds to all the various reviews that I saw (GenArt, RtgDir, SecDir, Shepherd). Please send any comments and concerns about the new version to the list as well as me. Regards, Alia ___ i2rs mailing list

Re: [i2rs] [RTG-DIR] Routing directorate review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement

Hi Eric, Thanks for your review. I really appreciate it. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Eric Gray wrote: > 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 thro

Re: [i2rs] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-04

Hi Qin, Thanks for the review and taking on being document shepherd! On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Qin Wu wrote: > Hi, authors > > > > I have been selected as the document shepherd for this draft. > > I think this is an important draft and support publication. > > > > Having reviewed this

Re: [i2rs] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-04

Hi Russ, Thanks for the review. Responses in-line. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > . > > This review is in res

Re: [i2rs] Regarding Multicast Use Cases for I2RS

Hi Bill, On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:47 PM, William Atwood wrote: > > > On 06/01/2015 1:03 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > >> A followup question: how can IESG evaluate a thousand or more line YANG > program? > > I think your comment is confused, but please also see the discussion on > > i...@ietf.org re

Re: [i2rs] Call for IPR infromation for I2RS Problem statement and I2RS Architecture document

I do not know of any IPR on either of these drafts. Alia On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Susan Hares wrote: > I2RS WG: > > > > This is a 1 week call (12/3 – 12/10) for any IPR related to the I2RS > problem statement and architecture drafts. These drafts have passed WG LC, > and the current ve

[i2rs] I2RS co-chair

To confirm what I said in this meeting... Ed is stepping down. Thank you, Ed, for all that you've done for I2RS. The ADs have asked Sue Hares to step in as co-chair to work with Jeff. I've asked the Secretariat to make this change as soon as possible. Thanks, Alia _

[i2rs] Creation of rtg-yang-coord mailing list

The rtg-yang-coord mailing list will provide a forum for coordination of the development of YANG models being worked on for Routing, in order to provide a consistent view to the NMS. The intended participants are people active in Routing working groups and interested in the associated YANG models

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 05:43:27PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Now - if we have to decide that the CLI always wins, that is one option. > > I, personally, would be quite opposed to the idea that I2RS would always > > win

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 11:15:40AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >> > >> > I don't agree that multiple ephemeral datastores are needed

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

e reboots? > > > > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [tnad...@lucidvision.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:33 PM > > To: Igor Bryskin > > Cc: Alia Atlas; Dean Bogdanovic; i2rs@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Why do we nee

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2014:11:15 AM, at 11:15 AM, Andy Bierman > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to really understand why I2RS needs a data

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to really understand why I2RS needs a datastore and what that >> actually means. >> In my initial conception of wha

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

elevant. Regards, Alia Igor > > From: i2rs [i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of Alia Atlas [ > akat...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:54 AM > To: Dean Bogdanovic > Cc: i2rs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore? > > Hi Dean,

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 09:54:12AM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Thanks for the explanation. It matches with what I understand for > > configuration. > > Where I am confused is why I2RS - which is doing ephemer

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

Hi Dean, Sorry for the delay in responding. Telechats do that to one. On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Dean Bogdanovic wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Alia Atlas > wrote: > > Hi Dean, > > Thanks for the explanation. It matches with what I understand for >

Re: [i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

a network, either enterprise or carrier), need to simplify network > management, make it more efficient and that devices will behave very > predictably, so that network is in a known state. Because of the legacy, > this is easiest done by having a local datastore on a device, through whic

[i2rs] Why do we need a datastore?

Hi, I'd like to really understand why I2RS needs a datastore and what that actually means. In my initial conception of what an I2RS agent would do for, say, writing a route in the RIB model, is that the I2RS agent would simply parse a received request from a standard format and model into the int

Re: [i2rs] Two thoughts on an ephemeral data store

Hi Alex, Tom, Joel, et al. (top-posting) In the initial I2RS framework, we had the ideal of different data lifetimes as well as being able to have written state be permanent or ephemeral. The I2RS WG consensus was very clear that I2RS should only support ephemeral state and that is reflected in

Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > From: Alia Atlas > Date: Monday, September 29, 2014 at 5:33 PM > To: Acee Lindem > Cc: Thomas Narten , Jeff Haas , " > i2rs@ietf.org" , Susan Hares > Subject: Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting r

Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:36:25PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > As noted in a prior message, this path is complicated by not having > settled > > > on

Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > [Context for the WG, I spent some time talking to Sue about the topics here > over lunch. I don't think anything has gone wrong beyond a need for > greater > communication of the involved parties. Picking this email to provide > context...]

Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

Jeff, On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > Alia, > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:21:30PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Second, the assumption that we have had with I2RS is that it will need > > different and possibly more limited models than would be used

Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

Acee, On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Thanks Much Thomas! Given that I was the victim of considerable back-door > escalations and machinations, I was giving myself a ³cooling off² period > prior responding. However, you expressed my sentiments with much more > patien

Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

Thomas, On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > It is NOT OK to tell anyone that they should not contribute a draft - > because > > it may muddy the water > > or for ANY other non-technical reason. Individual drafts or desire to > request > > WG adoption do not change > > this

Re: [i2rs] IETF 91 meeting requested - call for agenda; status reports?

Acee, It is NOT OK to tell anyone that they should not contribute a draft - because it may muddy the water or for ANY other non-technical reason. Individual drafts or desire to request WG adoption do not change this. I do not ever want to see or hear something like this on an IETF mailing list.

[i2rs] some thoughts on draft-tp-i2rs-yang-00

Hi Tom, First, thanks for writing this draft. I found the summary of what NetConf and YANG do to be useful - despite having read through many of the relevant RFCs. I think it is also pulling out lots of the questions about what does using NetConf/RestConf and YANG mean; some of been touched on in

Re: [i2rs] updated draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-04 and draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-04

Given the level of maturity of the security draft, that we put into the architecture draft what we think is good guidance without selecting existing mechanisms, and that we are trying to finish the architecture draft, do you really see aspects missing and if so, precisely what, around the security

Re: [i2rs] updated draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-04 and draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-04

Hi Juergen, On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 07:09:56PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > > Based upon the WGLC comments, I have updated these two drafts. Because I > > believe tha

Re: [i2rs] working group last call: draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement

Hi Robert, Sorry for the delay and missing these on the first pass! I really appreciate that you took the time to do a careful and thoughtful review. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Regarding draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-01 > > I have few minor comments: > > 1. >

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Lada, On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: [removing fine conversation] > > [Alia] We described the arbitration rules in Section 6.3 of > > draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03. > > I guess we have to think about a proper representation of operational > state and ways for tag

[i2rs] updated draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-04 and draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-04

Based upon the WGLC comments, I have updated these two drafts. Because I believe that the changes are not particularly controversial (except for the new reference to NETCONF and RESTCONF), I've published the updated versions so that the WG can verify the changes at the same time as my co-authors.

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Lada, On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > "t.petch" writes: > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Jeffrey Haas" > > To: "t.petch" > > Cc: "Jeffrey Haas" ; > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 7:07 PM > >> Tom, > >> > >> [retaining lots of content for context] >

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Wes & Jeff, The problem with responding to email in order as I update the draft is finding useful nuggets like this. I've removed the previously suggested text from the "Interactions with Local Config" section and updated the "Manageability Considerations" section to be "Operational and Managea

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Sri, Thanks for your thoughtful review! Responses in-line. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Sriganesh Kini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > >> Working Group, >> >> The original deadline for comments on WGLC for the problem statement and >> architecture d

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Tom, On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM, t.petch wrote: > Original Message - > From: "Jeffrey Haas" > To: "t.petch" > Cc: "Jeffrey Haas" ; > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 2:41 PM > > > Tom, > > > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:12:35PM +0100, t.petch wro

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Jim, I would request that you take a look at the various use-cases drafts. We did try and pull from those use-cases to motivate the architecture as well. I'd be happy to discuss off-line. Thanks, Alia On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:35 AM, UTTARO, JAMES wrote: > A document clearly stating the

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Tom, On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:12 AM, t.petch wrote: > Architecture > > After reading this, I struggle to see the point of I2RS:-( As was said > two months ago, > "And the basic premise of I2RS is that there are requirements for the > work that were not addressed properly by the existing con

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Wes, Thanks for your thoughtful review. Responses in-line. Alia On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:19 PM, George, Wes wrote: > > > >To assist us with putting this work behind us, please respond to the > >following questions: > > > >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement/

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Robert, Thanks for the review. Comments in-line. On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Late but still few comments on the draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03: > > > 1. > > This I2RS architecture recognizes that the routing > > system and a router’s OS provide use

Re: [i2rs] Working Group Last Call on architecture and problem statement drafts (redux)

Hi Joe, I'm sorry I missed this set of comments earlier. Responses in-line. Alia On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > On 6/5/14, 4:29 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture/ >> Have you read the architecture draft? >> D

  1   2   3   >