Subject: Re: [i2rs] comments on draft-atlas-i2rs-architecture-00

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 13:29:24 +0200

Hi,

[....]
>for collision detection. (I personally expect "entire table" to be a
>very rare case.)
>More complex collisions are not expected to be noticed by the system.
>If a client manipulating item A depends upon the value of item B, it
>should register for notifications of changes to B.
I assume that this will be independent of the source of the change
(e.g. whether B was changed by another client or by CLI, Routing,
SNMP, ...)?

  Regards

     Nic

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:35:44 -0400

Exactly so - at least in my view.

Alia

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:29 AM, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:39:31 -0400

That, independence of change source, sounds right to me.
Thanks,
Joel

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:44:12 -0400

> > In contrast, with perform all or perform until error the client is
> > telling the agent not to worry about interacting dependencies.  The
> > agent can simply apply the changes in the message one at a time to the
> system.
> >
> > The later is muh simpler o implement, and much faster to apply.  That
> > efficiency is important for many I2RS cases.  But it clearly does not
> > cover everything folks will want to do with I2RS, so we need the former
as
> well.

I think this would probably interact favorable with an atomic interface
model... Which is what I would prefer anyway. If the point of this exercise
is to move intelligence to the controller (at least to centralize policy!),
then it seems like leaving the intelligence in the controller is the best
bet. The more intelligence we add to the agent/end device, the most complex
the protocol, and the end (forwarding) device need to be...

:-)

Russ