Subject: [i2rs] comments on draft-atlas-i2rs-architecture-01

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:02:29 +0200

Hi,

I have a few comments on draft-atlas-i2rs-architecture-01 I like to
share. Overall, I found the document clearly written and well worked
out.

a) I suggest to remove the last two paragraphs from section 1.1 (the
   paragraphs that try to make a statement that SNMP, NETCONF, and
   ForCES do not work for i2rs).

   Rationale: This is an architectural document and it does not need
   to explain why certain protocols may not work as i2rs protocols. It
   is not the job of this document - so simply avoid discussions
   around this by removing these two paragraphs.

b) Is it necessary to describe an example in the middle of the
   architecture document, given that there is a separate use cases
   document? My suggestion would be to simply remove section 4.1 (and
   perhaps consider merging the text left in section 4 into some of
   the other sections).

c) In section 6.9, I suggest to rename 'Perform all' to 'Perform all
   ignoring errors' or something like that which better highlights the
   behaviour.

Editorial: I think the NETCONF community has settled on spelling
           NETCONF as NETCONF, not as NetConf.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:45:08 -0400

Hi Juergen,

Thanks for the comments and review.  Responses are in-line.

Alia

>    around this by removing these two paragraphs.

[Alia] Sure - I'd tried to trim it down a lot and avoid protocol bashing,
but am happy to remove it.

>    perhaps consider merging the text left in section 4 into some of

[Alia] I can certainly understand how that section seems a bit odd.
 However, the topology manager is a key focus point and use-case for I2RS -
and it is important architecturally to clarify the initial scope of I2RS in
the context of that use-case.  Certainly, those are the two reasons that we
put the section in there.  Similarly, we have bits of what might be
info-models to give a sense of what architecturally is in scope.

>    ignoring errors' or something like that which better highlights the
[Alia] Sure - renamed to "Perform all storing errors"

>            NETCONF as NETCONF, not as NetConf.

[Alia] Sure - made the change.

Thanks again,
Alia

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