Subject: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:53:14 -0400

Please review draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01 and comment on whether
it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is also most
welcome.

Authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01? Is so, has this IPR been disclosed
in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
more details).

This WG call for adoption will complete on August 12.

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:04:58 -0400

I think this is ready for working group adoption. I do not know of any IPR that applies to this document.

	--Tom

On Jul 24, 2013:5:53 PM, at 5:53 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Please review draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01 and comment on whether it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is also most welcome.
> 
> Authors: Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01? Is so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:07:19 +0200

Hi,

>From my point of view the draft is ready for WG adoption.

  regards

    Nic

________________________________
Von: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] Im Auftrag von Alia Atlas
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Juli 2013 23:53
An: [email-masked]
Betreff: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: "George, Wes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:01:19 -0400

support adoption, good starting point

Thanks,

Wes

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:53 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01

Thanks,
Alia

________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

---

From: Nitin Bahadur <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 05:31:09 +0000

Support.

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 05:41:24 +0000

Support WG adoption

Regards,

Wassim H.

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 06:56:00 +0000

Yes/support

Regards,
Jeff

---

From: ramki Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 00:32:42 -0700

Support WG adoption.

Thanks,
Ramki

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:56 AM
To: Wassim Haddad
Cc: [email-masked]; Wassim Haddad; Alia Atlas
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01

Yes/support

Regards,
Jeff

---

From: "Luyuan Fang (lufang)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 08:18:33 +0000

Support for WG adoption..
Luyuan

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:53 PM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption: draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01

Thanks,
Alia

---

From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 21:07:08 +0000

I support I2RS adoption of this document. 

This is a very nice document. I also wanted to provide a small set of review feedback comments (marked with "CMP"):

           Interface to the Routing System Problem Statement
                 draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01

Abstract

   In order to enable applications to have access to and control over
   information in the Internet's routing system, we need a publicly
   documented interface specification.  The interface needs to support

CMP: Where it says "In order to enable applications", I wonder if we need to further qualify "network applications", to differentiate a custom routing app versus a db query. Note this comment applies also to the Introduction.

   This document expands upon these statements of requirements to
   provide a detailed problem statement for an Interface to the Internet
   Routing System (I2RS).

CMP: The acronym does not expand, "Interface to the Internet Routing System" seems to be "I2IRS" (extra Internet).

2.  I2RS Model and Problem Area for The IETF

                   Figure 1: I2RS model and Problem Area

CMP: Figure 1 shows a single interface from an I2RS Client into an I2RS Agent. For model completeness, would it make sense to add another "<-->" (i.e., within scope) interface from the leftmost I2RS client into a different I2RS Agent? Even something like "<-----> To another I2RS Agent".

3.  Standard Data-Models of Routing State for Installation

   There is a need to be able to precisely control routing and signaling
   state based upon policy or external measures.  This can range from

and

   In addition to interfaces to the RIB layer, there is a need to
   configure the various routing and signaling protocols with differing
   dynamic state based upon application-level policy decisions.  The

CMP: It is not clear to me what "signaling" specifically refers to here. 

3.  Standard Data-Models of Routing State for Installation

   This means that, to usefully model
   next-hops, the data model employed needs to handle next-hop
   indirection (e.g. a prefix X is routed like prefix Y) as well as
   different types of tunneling and encapsulation.

CMP: a nit: "indirection", or "indirection and recursion"?

5.  Desired Aspects of a Protocol for I2RS

   Multiple Simultaneous Asynchronous Operations:   A single application
      should be able to send multiple operations to I2RS without being
      required to wait for each to complete before sending the next.

CMP: "via I2RS" instead of "to I2RS".

   Duplex:   Communications can be established by either the I2RS client
      (i.e.: that resides within the application or is used by it to
      communicate with the I2RS server), or the I2RS server.  Similarly,

CMP: Should "I2RS agent" be used instead of "I2RS Server", for nomenclature consistency?

5.  Desired Aspects of a Protocol for I2RS

CMP: I think there are some aspects potentially missing. Specifically:
CMP: 1. Conflict resolution or Conflict notification (2 Apps fighting for the same route)
CMP: 2. Security (and specifically integrity)
CMP: 3. Accounting.

Thanks!

-- Carlos.

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 21:17:06 -0400

Support for WG Adoption.

Russ

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Luyuan Fang (lufang)
> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 4:19 AM
> To: Alia Atlas; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Call for WG Adoption:
draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-
> 01
> From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> >
> To: "[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> " <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]> >
> Please review draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-statement-01 and comment on
> whether it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is
also
> most welcome.
draft-atlas-i2rs-problem-
> statement-01? Is so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF
IPR
> rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
>

---

From: Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 06:52:43 -0400

> it should be adopted by I2RS.  Detailed technical conversation is also most

Support adoption.. some small issues to authors direct.

-Jon

---

From: KwangKoog Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:54:00 +0900

Hi. This is Kwang-koog from kt which is one of major network providers in
South Korea.
First, I appreciate a vast of contributions by i2rs members for enabling
intelligent and simple routing operations.

As Alia mentioned in her draft, many network providers including kt
today have very huge and complex routing networks
according to the growth of the IP-based services but they really need
simple operation and new business model for covering a number of use cases
on that.
With the benefit of the distributed routing manner, modern routing systems
easily plugged into a designated routing network and
forward user packets to desired destinations. But, in the operator
perspective, policy-based routing control and necessary optimizations for
routing are always major issues for them because it is very hard to control
multi-vendor ruters with their own proprietary functions.

Our company has operated huge routing systems with the size of thousands of
routing systems during tens of years
and made a significant effort to optimize routing systems.
So, current routing systems support preferable service level aggrement and
traffic utilization is optimized by the our own planning rules.
However, to this end, there have been even much trial-and-error and many
times.
So, I expect that the works of i2rs help network providers to easily
control their network and also support many usecases from our customers.

I also think Alia clearly stated such concerns of modern routing systems so
that I also support the WG adoption.
I2RS members pointed out many comments and feedbacks for enhancing that
document which I also agree with.

In addition, I give a small comment to her draft for "Sec. 5 desired aspect
of a protocol for i2rs"
That is "*interoperability between protocol versions*".
For example, newly defined software define network protocols such as
openflow rapidly changed and a bunch of functions are added.
But, nobody does consider the interoperability of such protocols.
I think providers are very wonderring that different version protocols can
be inter-working or not.
So, I want to comment that i2rs protocol has to have this aspect.

Thanks.

sincerly,
Kwang-koog Lee (Ph.D)
the advanced institue of technology of kt, South Korea

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Jon Mitchell <[email-masked]>wrote:

> whether