Subject: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 05 May 2016 22:59:01 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System of the IETF.

        Title           : I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements
        Authors         : Jeff Haas
                          Susan Hares
	Filename        : draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2016-05-05

Abstract:
   This document covers requests to the netmod and netconf Working
   Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements
   to implement the I2RS architecture.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 09:34:45 +0200

I have a hard time with this document. Section 3 is labelled
requirements but it actually details solution and I disagree with a
significant number of the solution elements. To name an example:
Indicating in a data model with which protocols it should be used and
which secure transports underneath the protocol should be used. I do
not want to discuss all the details here since obviously this is not a
requirements document.

/js

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:59:01PM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

-- 
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: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 12:26:35 -0400

Jürgen,

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:34:45AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> significant number of the solution elements.

If you were to restrict your comments to the requirements labeled variously:
Ephemeral-REQ-XX
PubSub-REQ-X

do you consider the items sufficiently well described to be a requirements
document?

As Sue mentioned, we can migrate solution-space discussion wholly into the
strawman document.

-- Jeff

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 20:23:59 +0200

> do you consider the items sufficiently well described to be a requirements

Mostly:

- I do not understand what Ephemeral-REQ-05 is trying to say.

- I disagree with Ephemeral-REQ-06 and section 3.4.1 all sounds like
  solution attempts (to which I do not agree).

- I disagree with Ephemeral-REQ-07 and all of section 3.5 and
  subsections; this is not a requirement but an attempt to describe a
  solution.
 
- I disagree with Ephemeral-REQ-08 and all of section 3.5 and
  subsections; this is not a requirement but an attempt to describe a
  solution.

- Has Ephemeral-REQ-09 (the first one) not been stated elsewhere
  already?

- Ephemeral-REQ-xx with xx >= 09 and xx <= 13 seem repetitions from
  requirements already stated elsewhere?

- I did not understand section 3.7.3 and I am unsure what
  Ephemeral-REQ-13 or more specifically whether it is different from
  what is already stated in the requirements. I have trouble parsing
  some of the sentences, e.g.

   [...] I2RS notes multiple operations in one or
   more messages handling can handle errors within the set of operations
   in many ways.

- I do not understand PubSub-REQ-1; what is the difference between
  synchronous and asynchronous push?

- I may disagree with PubSub-REQ-2 but then I do not know what 'real
  time for notifications' means.

- I may disagree with PubSub-REQ-3.

- I do not understand what PubSub-REQ-4 means; what is a 'critical
  node event'? How do I decide this requirement has been met?

- PubSub-REQ-5 seems to mix up different issues. I do not know what a
  hierarchy of filters of XPATHs is.

- PubSub-REQ-6 is likely underspecified.

Overall, I do not understand why we need these additional requirements
given that we have draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-08.txt.
 
> As Sue mentioned, we can migrate solution-space discussion wholly into the

In general, it would help me if you make an effort to reduce the
number of documents and if you make an effort to avoid document
overlaps. Sometimes less is more.

/js