Re: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

What is the disposition of the WG on adding a "Common" to the title?

Roman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Italo Busi
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 6:00 AM
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
> <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you
> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> I really like the idea to align the titles between TE, L0 and L1 types models
> 
> I would just expand the title as " Common YANG Data Types for Layer 1
> Networks"
> 
> Regarding OTN versus Layer 1 issue, it is true that the majority of the
> definitions in this draft are for OTN but the draft also defines additional Layer 1
> types (e.g., L1 Ethernet and FC) independently from OTN even if today they are
> mainly used to model Layer 1 services over OTN
> 
> BTW, TEAS WG is also working on RFC8776 bis so there is room for further
> improvements, if you wish, but those would require discussion and
> coordination with TEAS WG
> 
> My 2 cents
> 
> Italo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: mercoledì 14 febbraio 2024 17:25
> > To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; Italo Busi
> > <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-
> > 16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > We might still have some room for changing, but what I would suggest
> > is to be congruent with RFC 8776 and RFC 9093.
> > A small summary for you.
> >
> > - RFC 8776 defines common data types for Traffic engineering and it's called:
> > Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
> > - RFC 9093 defined common data types for L0 networks and it's called:
> > A YANG Data Model for Layer 0 Types
> > - this draft defined common data types for L1 networks and it's
> > called: A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types
> >
> > Given that we're working on RFC 9093 bis, we might change it's title as well.
> >
> > Do you think that the title of RFC8776 sounds better? We could reuse
> > it in this draft and something along the lines of: Common YANG data
> > types for L1 networks.
> >
> > Would this work?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniele
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:02 PM
> > To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-
> > 16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Hello Italo,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply and some actions. Nevertheless, I still find
> > that the draft title is really misleading.
> >
> > As the authors, the CCAMP WG/AD, and the IETF Last Call think that it
> > is not confusing, then I am balloting an ABSTAIN in the coming minutes.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > -éric
> >
> > On 14/02/2024, 14:17, "Italo Busi" <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Eric,
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to
> > address your comments and posted the updated document as draft-ietf-
> > ccamp-layer1-types-17
> >
> >
> > Updates include:
> >
> >
> > - Added clarification text for "Layer 1" networks to avoid confusion
> > of the Title
> > - Expanded the Security and highlighted that write operations without
> > proper protection can have a negative effect on network operations
> >
> >
> > Again, thanks for the support and review.
> >
> >
> > Authors, Haomian and Italo.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Sent: martedì 12 dicembre 2023 10:19
> > > To: The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16:
> > > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > >
> > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: Discuss
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> > > all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> > > cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to
> > > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-
> > > <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot->
> > > positions/
> > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT
> > > positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/
> > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for raft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16
> > >
> > > Thank you for the work put into this document. As I am not an
> > > optical expert, I have only reviewed the overall structure.
> > >
> > > Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), and
> > > one non-blocking COMMENT point.
> > >
> > > Special thanks to Daniel King for the shepherd's detailed write-up
> > > including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.
> > >
> > > Other thanks to Dirk Von Hugo, the Internet directorate reviewer (at
> > > my request), please consider this int-dir review:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-i
> > > nt
> > > dir-
> > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-
> > > in
> > > tdir->
> > > telechat-von-hugo-2023-12-09/
> > > (even if only nits, it would be nice to see a reply from the
> > > authors)
> > >
> > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > -éric
> > >
> > > # DISCUSS (blocking)
> > >
> > > As noted in
> > > https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> > > <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>, a
> > > DISCUSS
> > ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:
> > >
> > > ## Layer 1 vs. OTN
> > >
> > > The I-D title and the abstract first sentence (as well as CCAMP
> > > charter) are
> > > misleading: it is *not* about generic layer-1 but only about a very
> > > specific
> > > one: OTN. I.e., the content does not match the wrapping, please
> > > update the title and the abstract.
> > >
> > > Obviously, this is not a DISCUSS level point but I want to get a
> > > discussion with the authors and the responsible AD(s) before
> > > clearing my ballot to either NoObj (if the scope is changed) or to
> > > abstain (if text/title is unchanged).
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > COMMENT:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > # COMMENTS (non-blocking)
> > >
> > > ## Section 7
> > >
> > > Should the writable data nodes be listed with the associated
> > > security vulnerabilities ? Per
> > > https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines
> > > <https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >