Re: [Detnet] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16
Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net> Tue, 04 October 2022 18:59 UTC
Return-Path: <dfedyk@labn.net>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AC3C14CF1D; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QmP6121fP2h9; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM12-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-mw2nam12lp2046.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.66.46]) (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 BB3CAC14CE27; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:133::11) by PH0PR14MB4624.namprd14.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:81::23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5676.24; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:58:51 +0000
Received: from PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c285:9424:a2db:84b5]) by PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c285:9424:a2db:84b5%5]) with mapi id 15.20.5676.028; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:58:51 +0000
From: Don Fedyk <dfedyk@labn.net>
To: "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-detnet-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-detnet-yang.all@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "detnet@ietf.org" <detnet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16
Thread-Index: AQHYx3mKklNZ7M4Cp0aO2Zfkbd3Rxq3p7kUggBTIDeA=
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 18:58:50 +0000
Message-ID: <PH7PR14MB53684FBCFAC1B7E7CD51CB6CBB5A9@PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
References: <f8842b8f-bbb5-cf31-90de-24fa061bc3f9@orange.com> <MN2PR14MB4030869219F77B6E853E2973BB4F9@MN2PR14MB4030.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR14MB4030869219F77B6E853E2973BB4F9@MN2PR14MB4030.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=labn.net;
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: PH7PR14MB5368:EE_|PH0PR14MB4624:EE_
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b362ca24-1dc6-496b-5f36-08daa63a79f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: labn.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH7PR14MB5368.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b362ca24-1dc6-496b-5f36-08daa63a79f6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Oct 2022 18:58:51.0224 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: eb60ac54-2184-4344-9b60-40c8b2b72561
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: YX3lJ4w2zEh98+Y90U3DWEMTUmgqPTlwQo5oVfK/5v0jsREFj47T1kx9swGKnkmSvsaWQiav0TXHBtghZHk0Bg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: PH0PR14MB4624
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/kgaJKmLOUp2YBhHv-q1M_jV7mYA>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 18:59:03 -0000
Hi Everyone I have now posted the revisions. Note IDnits now flags warnings due to ieee802-dot1q-types@2022-05-19.yang. I have alerted the IEEE group that handles this. In my local environment the older ieee YANG file was fine and had no warnings. Thanks Don . -----Original Message----- From: Don Fedyk Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 2:43 PM To: julien.meuric@orange.com; <rtg-ads@ietf.org> <rtg-ads@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-detnet-yang.all@ietf.org Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; detnet@ietf.org Subject: RE: RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16 Hi Julien Thanks for the review. I have addressed the issues below where noted: Inline [don] I have placed the pending changes in the public https://github.com/detnet-wg/draft-ietf-detnet-yang for my co authors to look at and comment. The easy way to see the changes is to copy the xml file form git hub and go to the IETF author tools an see the diff. Coauthors, please have a look or say that I can push the changes as version 17. I will push if my coauthors agree or next week if there is no feedback. Thanks Don Subject: RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16 Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-detnet-yang Reviewer: Julien Meuric Review Date: 2022-09-13 Intended Status: Standards Track _Summary_ I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. _Comments_ The YANG module itself seems almost ready but the text that introduces it needs a few clarification or rewording. _Minor Issues_ - First of all, IdNits points out 3 normative references on informational RFCs 8938, 9016 and 9055. Are you sure the 3 of them are mandatory to implement the YANG module? [Don] I think that 8938, 9016 are normative. I have moved 9055. - In the abstract, I don't really understand the point of the sentence "An operator or network controller programs the configuration of the devices" since service provisioning on devices along the path is previously mentioned. If the intent was to say: " The configuration of the devices can be programmed by an operator or a network controller.", that feels like stating the obvious for a device-embeded YANG module. [don] the point was this is a Configured Datapath model not a singling path model. I've removed the operator /network controller part. - In section 4, the wording of "ingress" and "egress" definitions feel odd. Is it meant to say "Ingress refers to entering the DetNet application layer and egress to leaving the application layer."? [don] Old: All of the layers have ingress/incoming and egress/outgoing operations but any instance may be configured as only unidirectional. This means that each unidirectional flow identifier configuration is programmed starting at the ingress and flow status is reported at ingress on each end. In the MPLS cases once encapsulated, the IP 6-tuple parameters may not be required to be programmed again. In the IP case, without encapsulation, various IP flow id parameters must be configured along the flow path. New: All of the layers have ingress/incoming and egress/outgoing operations, but any instance may be configured as only unidirectional. Ingress refers to any DetNet layer where a DetNet context is applied. Ingress allows functions such as switching, aggregation and encapsulation. Likewise, egress refers to any DetNet layer where a Detnet context is removed. Egress allows functions such as switching, disaggregation and decapsulation. This means that each unidirectional flow identifier configuration is programmed starting at the ingress and flow status is reported at ingress on each end. In the MPLS cases once encapsulated, the IP 6-tuple parameters may not be required to be programmed again. In the IP case, without encapsulation, various IP flow id parameters must be configured along the flow path. - The described aggregation cases are scoped either as layer N to layer N or as layer N to layer N-1. However, there's a relay node case where aggregation is described as layer N (forwarding) to layer N+1 (service). Since there's no forwarding to forwarding relay case, I suspect a mismatch... [Later note: in the model itself, one can find "forwarding-to-forwarding aggregation at the ingress node or relay node or transit node", so it looks like an issue in the text part.] [don] Not sure there is a transit node which is forwarding to forwarding and there is a relay node that is forwarding to forwarding. I struggle to word the missing case? - In section 8, the max-loss leaf is an uint32 but is defined as a "ratio". Considering the value in the examples (2), it seems that the description text (and units?) should be adjusted. [Don] I think this should be packet loss rate from RFC 9016 and I have adjusted it. Packet loss rate is a percentage. I have allowed from 0 to 100. With 0.0000000001 being the smallest non zero value. _Nits_ ------ Abstract --- s/operational data for DetNet Flows/operational data of DetNet Flows/ [already 2 "for"s in the phrase] [Don] Done ------ Section 4. --- OLD Node types typically are logical per DetNet service and one DetNet service can be one node type while another is another node type on same device. NEW Node types are logical roles per DetNet service: a device along one DetNet service can be of one node type, while another service may use the same device with a different node type. [don] Done. s/edge node(egress/edge node (egress/ s/These may used/These may be used/ s/the configuration need to/the configuration needs to/ s/IP based path/IP-based path/ s/parameters for aggregated flow/parameters for aggregated flow/ [Don] Done ------ Section 10. --- OLD o this also coudl be considered moer sensitive. The trafic profiles liked to NEW so this also could be considered more sensitive. The traffic profiles linked to ------ [Don] Done Regards, Julien
- [Detnet] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-16 julien.meuric
- Re: [Detnet] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yan… Don Fedyk
- Re: [Detnet] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yan… John Scudder
- Re: [Detnet] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yan… Don Fedyk
- Re: [Detnet] RtgDir Review: draft-ietf-detnet-yan… Don Fedyk