[bess] Some comments on draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-10

wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com> Thu, 18 July 2019 09:36 UTC

Return-Path: <wangzitao@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C9B1200B6; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hPeEAL-PRSMZ; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:36:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA6F1120020; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 4019ACD043C04F1C6096; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:36:45 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com ( by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:36:44 +0100
Received: from lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:36:45 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM424-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:36:44 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by dggemm424-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Thu, 18 Jul 2019 17:36:40 +0800
From: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Some comments on draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-10
Thread-Index: AdU9S3OaOQX4FjePRaW3QRtGuAX0uQ==
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:36:39 +0000
Message-ID: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2DA1C753@DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2DA1C753DGGEMM527MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/AQJ_7_m5tQG3T3OJrya5PSwH31Y>
Subject: [bess] Some comments on draft-ietf-bess-l2vpn-yang-10
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:36:50 -0000

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed this version. And I have the following comment:

# L2VPN base mode has already defined AC and PW two common attributes, redundancy-grp is introduced as combination of AC attribute and PW attribute, not sure the redundancy-grp is a common attribute for L2VPN.
I would like to argue why not define redundancy-group in the extension model or in a separate draft.

# I see pseudowires in ietf-pseudowires have already defined common attributes such as MTU, cw-negotiation and tunnel-policy, template within pseudowires reference pw-template and pw-template also defines duplicated common attribute such as MTU, cw-negotiation and tunnel-policy.
So I think template parameter and pw-template should be removed.

# Not sure group-id ,icb, generalized are common attribute for configured-pw case. Suggest to simplify configured-pw attributes and keep the minimum set of attributes common to all vendor's implementation.

# The definition of discover-type and signaling-type are very similar. What are their differences? Can we keep only one?

# vpws-constraints is an empty container, it seems just like a placeholder, suggest to delete it.

# Pbb is an ieee802.1 specific technology, suggest to remove it from base model and move it to technology specific model.

Best Regards!