Subject: [i2rs] I2RS WG Adoption Calls

From: Edward Crabbe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:45:42 -0700

All;

Jeff and I are looking to adopt the following drafts, loosely grouped into
the areas listed below:

================================
Protocol Functionality:
================================

draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-02

draft-hares-i2rs-security
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hares-i2rs-security-00

================================
Specific Use Cases:
================================

draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keyupate-i2rs-bgp-usecases-02

draft-bitar-i2rs-service-chaining
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bitar-i2rs-service-chaining-01

draft-amante-i2rs-topology-use-cases-01
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-amante-i2rs-topology-use-cases-01

draft-white-i2rs-use-case
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-white-i2rs-use-case-03

================================

If the authors have no issue with adoption of the drafts in their current
form we will be proceeding with individual adoption calls for each of the
drafts.

best,
  -Jeff and ed

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:27:12 +0200

> Jeff and I are looking to adopt the following drafts, loosely grouped into

I do agree that traceability is an important requirement. I am
wondering why this is not mentioned in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03.
If it would be discussed in the architecture draft, we likely would
not need this I-D at this point in time (wait until we have a clearer
view how i2rs will work on the wire so we better understand logging
requirements or it might be that logging requirements should not be
addressed just for i2rs but in general for the selected i2rs
protocol).
 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hares-i2rs-security-00

The author list is impressive, the actual contribution I find kind of
limited at this point in time. It is not clear to me what exactly the
contribution is nor is it clear to me why an expansion of the security
architecture found in the i2rs architecture is needed. If an expansion
is needed, why not put it into the i2rs architecture?

/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: "Susan Hares" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 06:19:47 -0400

Juergen:

You are correct.  This is the initial draft that shows our thinking.  A
second draft was planned before IETF.  I will hurry that up, and send within
this review cycle. 

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 2:27 AM
To: Edward Crabbe
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I2RS WG Adoption Calls

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:45:42PM -0700, Edward Crabbe wrote:
> All;
> 
> Jeff and I are looking to adopt the following drafts, loosely grouped 
> into the areas listed below:
> 

I do agree that traceability is an important requirement. I am wondering why
this is not mentioned in draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03.
If it would be discussed in the architecture draft, we likely would not need
this I-D at this point in time (wait until we have a clearer view how i2rs
will work on the wire so we better understand logging requirements or it
might be that logging requirements should not be addressed just for i2rs but
in general for the selected i2rs protocol).

The author list is impressive, the actual contribution I find kind of
limited at this point in time. It is not clear to me what exactly the
contribution is nor is it clear to me why an expansion of the security
architecture found in the i2rs architecture is needed. If an expansion is
needed, why not put it into the i2rs architecture?

/js

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

---

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:08:52 -0400

> addressed just for i2rs but in general for the selected i2rs

One of the reasons this draft is separate was a desire from the
architecture draft authors to have this stand as its own document.  This
work is important enough to merit such attention IMHO.  We feel strongly
this work should be done in the I2RS WG because this we want this to
evolve with choices made by the WG with respect to protocol.  This
should be an effort to define elements for proper I2RS traceability
independent of protocol or format.  Those protocol-specific
implementations of this I2RS Traceability can happen in their respective
WGs. Keeping this tightly aligned to I2RS makes things easier and
prevents a never-ending bike shed debate.

Joe