Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Thu, 18 February 2021 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160493A18A7 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:25:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axm___e6WzFB for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3DD13A18B0 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DhSH02n9Qz67nxP; Fri, 19 Feb 2021 05:18:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:25:05 +0100
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:25:05 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: 'tom petch' <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10
Thread-Index: AQHW/6REM7YfBwPDm0WKW/Mzd3v1bKpeeGmg
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:25:05 +0000
Message-ID: <12e60a8fba484889813f78a5b177f288@huawei.com>
References: <HE1PR0701MB228249E4D2F5378663195FD7F08E9@HE1PR0701MB2282.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM7PR07MB62484A47E0010CF1E51B33D6A08D9@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB62484A47E0010CF1E51B33D6A08D9@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.24.177]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/6fPQ9v7Aary-SuNbu7tuKJ0L5sw>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:25:22 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your useful comments:

> The YANG module is totally devoid of references, which has to be fixed, at
> least in part, at some stage and the earlier it is fixed, the less time consuming
> reviewing is.
> 

We will add references when applicable

> s.5 says there is no open issue in this version.  The text gives the lie to this with
> 'open issue' in four places
> 

To avoid inconsistent information, we will remove section 5 and use only github to track open issues

> there are YANG statements commented out.  The last time I saw this it was
> because the Author could not make the YANG work
> 

We will review the YANG code and track these as open issues in github

> It is another of those module that is really 100 or so independent YANG
> fragments in a different order to those other modules that are really 100 or so
> independent YANG fragments.  As was said in a recent IESG review, it is a
> shame we cannot go back and change the TEAS i.e. they got the underlying
> structure wrong:-(
> 

Are you referring to the multiple augment statements to augment the TE label/bandwidth information defined in RFC8795?

They are based on the guidelines provided by section 6 of RFC8795.

> the choice of YANG prefix makes comprehension harder

There is an on-going discussion within the WG: we will align with the outcome of that discussion

Italo (on behalf of co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: mercoledì 10 febbraio 2021 12:20
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>;
> CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-
> yang-10
> 
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli
> <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Sent: 09 February 2021 12:28
> 
> CCAMP,
> 
> All the IPR declarations regarding draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10have
> been collected, this starts the polling for its adoption by CCAMP.
> 
> The poll will last 2 weeks and will end on Tuesday February 23rd.
> 
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support"
> and a motivation for  your reply, mandatory for the "not support" and nice to
> have for the "support".
> 
> <tp>
> This will be an expensive I-D to work on.
> 
> The YANG module is totally devoid of references, which has to be fixed, at
> least in part, at some stage and the earlier it is fixed, the less time consuming
> reviewing is.
> 
> s.5 says there is no open issue in this version.  The text gives the lie to this with
> 'open issue' in four places
> 
> there are YANG statements commented out.  The last time I saw this it was
> because the Author could not make the YANG work
> 
> It is another of those module that is really 100 or so independent YANG
> fragments in a different order to those other modules that are really 100 or so
> independent YANG fragments.  As was said in a recent IESG review, it is a
> shame we cannot go back and change the TEAS i.e. they got the underlying
> structure wrong:-(
> 
> the choice of YANG prefix makes comprehension harder
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniele & Fatai
> 
>