Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-02

Request Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 23)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2015-10-13
Requested 2015-10-06
Authors Jeffrey Haas , Susan Hares
I-D last updated 2015-10-13
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -19 by Lionel Morand (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 02 (document currently at 23)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-10-13
For details on Routing Area QA reviews, see:

Name: draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-02
     I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: October 10, 2015

This document is close to ready for working group last call.

Major issues: None.

Minor Issues:
     I would suggest that the introduction needs to include a
description, longer than that in the abstract, of the purpose of the

     If the document purpose is as stated in the abstract, to provide
requirements to NetConf and NetMod working groups regarding ephemeral
state, then section 2 should have a bit more explanatory text, as the
requirements there are explicitly not abotu ephemeral state.  It may be
as simple as stating that these requirements are repeated hear to
provide context for the reader.  Or whatever explanation does apply for
why they are here.

     On section 3.2 requirement 02, the text prohibiting reference from
non-ephemeral to ephemeral state needs some clarification.  First, it
should be clear that this is a requirement on behavior outside of I2RS,
as I2RS can not refer to non-ephemeral state.  Also, it seems likely
that such incorrect references could be attempted at either model
definition time or NetConf request application time.  As such
"validation error" may be too specific a description of the errors needed.

     Requirement 3.4 is written as if writeable / non-writeable were a
new requirement to NetConf.  I believe what is wanted here is only that
there must be indications in the model of ephemeral elements, and that
it is writeable.  If there is a need for non-writeable ephemeral
elements, that should be described seperately.  At this reading, I do
not see a need for such.

     Section 3.6 would benefit from an introductory sentence indicating
that these requirements are included because they have an impact on
viable solutions to the ephemeral state requirements, although they
themselves are more general requirements applying to I2RS operations.

     Given that the design team is looking at a model which they
describe as a limited panes of glass model, it seems that if section 4
is retained (as it provides useful context) section 4.2 needs to be
modified to be clear as to what solution is being rejected.

Editorial Issues:  Not noted