Subject: [RTG-DIR] Routing Directorate Review of draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:04:58 -0500

Y'all --

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-07
Reviewer: Russ White
Review Date: 17 December 2014
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known 
Intended Status: Information

Summary: 

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

Comments:

Please supply an overview of the draft quality and readability.
Include anything else that you think will be helpful toward understanding your review.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

No minor issues found.

Nits:

Not much, just some possible suggestions that might (or might not) make the draft more readable below.

==

1.  Introduction

==
   Routers that form the internet routing infrastructure maintain state
   at various layers of detail and function.  For example, a typical
   router maintains a Routing Information Base (RIB), and implements
   routing protocols such as OSPF, ISIS, and BGP to exchange protocol
   state and other information about the state of the network with other
   routers.

   This is a bit of a quibble, but... While routing protocols do exchange "protocol state and other information about the state of the network," The primary point of routing protocols is to exchange reachability and topology information -- which seems to be included in the "other information" category here. Just seems strange to put the primary reason behind the protocols into the "other information" category. :-)

==
   
5.  Network Applications and I2RS Client

   In the simplest architecture, a network-oriented application has an
   I2RS client as a library or driver for communication with routing
   elements.
   
   It just feels a little odd to have one named interaction type, and two unnamed ones (?). I'm going to suggest ideas here, though it's not a crucial point either way, since these aren't referred to anyplace else.

   Perhaps the "direct access architecture."

==
   
   In a third architecture, a routing element or network-oriented
   application that uses an I2RS Client to access services on a
   different routing element may also contain an I2RS agent to provide
   services to other network-oriented applications.  However, where the
   needed information and data models for those services differs from
   that of a conventional routing element, those models are, at least
   
   Perhaps the "third party architecture," or some such.