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

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

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-int
> > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>