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

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

We have just uploaded the -18 version of the I-D with text changes discussed with Deborah (thanks a lot for on-line and offline support)

We have also removed the FICON identities due to lack of standard references and made few editorial updates to the YANG code

Please check that everything is fine:


Name:     draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types

Revision: 18

Title:    Common YANG Data Types for Layer 1 Networks

Date:     2024-02-23

Group:    ccamp

Pages:    55

URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-18.txt

Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/

HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types

Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-18

Thanks, Italo (on behalf of co-authors/contributors)

From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>
Sent: giovedì 15 febbraio 2024 22:03
To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG <[e-mail]>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; Italo Busi <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi,

I support adding “Common” to the title as the draft does address “common” types – not all L1 possibilities.

I think Éric made a good comment on the draft seeming to be about OTN – for the non-OTN familiar reader, it may seem to be only about OTN. OTN is comprised of many sub-structures (ODUflex, ODUx). Layer 1 over Layer 1 over Layer 1 over Layer 1…😊 This draft (as it says in section 4.1) includes these OTN structures as it treats them also as Layer 1 types (as it should). But the draft does include other Layer 1 types (Ethernet, FC). It is not a comprehensive list, it is scoped to the most common Layer 1 clients for OTN/WDM networks.

Maybe it would help to clarify the draft covers non-OTN Layer 1 types by direct reference to their specs instead of G709:

  *   For Ethernet, should reference IEEE. For FC, instead of G709, should reference the FC standards (hint can find FC references in G7041, not G709).
  *   Suggest tweaking the Abstract and Introduction.

Suggest for Abstract:
This document defines a collection of common data types and groupings in the YANG data modeling language for use with layer 1 networks, including Optical Transport Networks (OTN).  These derived common types and groupings are intended to be imported by modules that specify OTN networks, such as topology, tunnel, client signal adaptation, and service.
/s/
This document defines a collection of common Layer 1 data types and groupings in the YANG data modeling language. The Layer 1 types are representative of Layer 1 client signals applicable in Optical Transport Networks (OTN). The Optical Transport Network (OTN) data structures are included in this document as Layer 1 types.

Suggest for this sentence in the Introduction:
The Optical Transport Networking (OTN), a typical Layer 1 network, is specified in [RFC7062].
/s/
The Optical Transport Network (OTN), a Layer 1 network, is specified in [RFC7062].

Thanks,
Deborah

From: CCAMP <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Roman Danyliw
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 9:31 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]<mailto:Italo.Busi=[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi! What is the disposition of the WG on adding a "Common" to the title? Roman > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg <iesg-bounces@ ietf. org> On Behalf Of Italo Busi > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 6: 00 AM > To: Daniele


Hi!



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



Roman



> -----Original Message-----

> From: iesg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Italo Busi

> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 6:00 AM

> To: Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Eric Vyncke (evyncke)

> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 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]>

> 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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> > Sent: mercoledì 14 febbraio 2024 17:25

> > To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Italo Busi

> > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 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]>

> > 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]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> > Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 4:02 PM

> > To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

> > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;

> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli (dceccare) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;

> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>

> > > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>;

> > > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> > > <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXBWAM-QW$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXBWAM-QW$>

> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXBWAM-QW$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXBWAM-QW$>>

> > > positions/

> > > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT

> > > positions.

> > >

> > >

> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:

> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXMrb3WWQ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXMrb3WWQ$>

> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXMrb3WWQ$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXMrb3WWQ$>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------

> > > --

> > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-i__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXFj8ly_v$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-i__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXFj8ly_v$>

> > > nt

> > > dir-

> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXHqELiNj$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16-__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXHqELiNj$>

> > > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXCIxE_h7$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXCIxE_h7$>

> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXCIxE_h7$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXCIxE_h7$>>, 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXPxXLDhd$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXPxXLDhd$>

> > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXPxXLDhd$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-security-guidelines__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXPxXLDhd$>>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >



_______________________________________________

CCAMP mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXGvK5lgM$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp__;!!BhdT!kJhTvbBR1hTBG2YY37gwaH7clGgdL2S0x1vn3beAe20PjGpcvjL_XH-FVwEQgcygXGvK5lgM$>