Subject: [i2rs] Draft Charter Updates

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 22:06:56 -0000

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-i2rs/

I made some changes to reflect recent discussions...

- Expanded RIB and FIB (thanks Barry Leiba).

- Expanded BGP (per Barry Leiba)

- Replace first paragraph with a clearer statement of what the routing
   system is and what it does using a bullet list (per Alia Atlas, Thomas 
   Narten, and Russ White)

- In (old) second paragraph, add "protocol-based" to the description of the
   interfaces that are being built as part of the I2RS work (per Alia Atlas).

- In (old) third paragraph, clarify that the encodings and protocols are for the
  I2RS interfaces (per Alia Atlas)

- Changed the intro to the use cases to be specific rather than open-ended
   (per Russ White)

- Delete "and to the policies used to construct the Forwarding Information
   Base (FIB)" from the first use case as this basically covers the other use
   cases (which are more detailed). Retain the use case of access to the RIB
   (per Russ White)

I hope we have some form of stability and don't need to flog the poor old horse
too much more.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 18:47:42 -0500

> - Expanded RIB and FIB (thanks Barry Leiba).

But, he-he-he, ...

>    cases (which are more detailed). Retain the use case of access to the RIB

...this one removed the expansion of "FIB", don't'cha know.

> I hope we have some form of stability and don't need to flog the poor old horse

Modulo my response to the other note, yeh.

Barry

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:18:04 -0000

> ...this one removed the expansion of "FIB", don't'cha know.

Duh-oh!

Fixed in the next revision.

A

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:17:38 +0000

Looking at the 15th January version of this, I think it would benefit
from the sort of tweaking an RFC Editor might provide!

'determine the best path'   path(s) would be better in this day and age

/network's fowarding/network's forwarding /

'protocols that compute routes and paths'  I see protocols exchanging
data - computing seems a little odd, rather, for me, processes compute

/Border gateway/Border Gateway/

'through quickly modification'   speedy? or rapid?

' a standard mechanisms ' mechanism?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 10:06 PM
Subject: [i2rs] Draft Charter Updates

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:34:56 -0000

Hi Tom,

> from the sort of tweaking an RFC Editor might provide!

Congratulations! You get the job :-)

> 'determine the best path'   path(s) would be better in this day and age

This is the only one I disagree with. I hate the parenthetical 's' when using
the plural to mean one or more is perfectly fine English. So I s/path/paths/

All other points agreed and changes made.

Thanks,
Adrian