[Gen-art] Re: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart review

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

The authors and contributors discussed this issue today and the proposal is to update the text in section 3.1 as follows:

OLD

The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-plane instance.

NEW

The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains TE types that are commonly used across multiple TE technology-specific modules.

Regarding the definition of the session-attributes-flags, we noted that the union of the session-attributes-flags and lsp-attributes-flags provides the list of all the path attributes that can be applied to any type of TE path although originally defined for RSVP-TE SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object and RSVP-TE LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and we would propose the following changes to YANG:

OLD

  identity session-attributes-flags {
    description
      "Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags.";
  }

  identity lsp-attributes-flags {
    description
      "Base identity for LSP attributes flags.";
  }


NEW

  identity session-attributes-flags {
    description
      "Base identity for the path attributes flags as defined for the RSVP-TE SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.";
  }

  identity lsp-attributes-flags {
    description
      "Base identity for the path attributes flags as defined for the RSVP-TE LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.";
  }

Would these changes address your concerns?

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

From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>
Sent: giovedì 15 gennaio 2026 21:06
To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart review


At the very least, it would help if you would mark which things are included for compatibility even though they don't fit the paradigm.

Yours,

Joel
On 1/15/2026 1:33 PM, Italo Busi wrote:
Hi Joel,

For the session-attributes-flags, I will further check with the co-authors since it is also coming from RFC 8776, and we had not discussed it in the context of RFC 8776-bis

For the exceptions, these are due to mistakes in RFC 8776 so we have two options:


  1.  Deprecate or obsolete these definitions in YANG and re-defined them in other technology-specific YANG models
  2.  Keep these definitions in YANG and mark them as exceptions due to historical reasons

We adopted the latter option not to cause impacts to existing implementations of RFC 8776 but the intention is to keep them as exceptions to the rule

Italo

From: Joel Halpern <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: giovedì 15 gennaio 2026 17:06
To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart review


Just because they are there before does not justify claiming they are technology agnostic.

And there seem to be a scattering of ones that are new and not agnostic, such as session-attribute-flags

"Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags.";
which is clearly specific to RSVP-TE.  As are a number of entries which follow that.  RSVP-TE is clearly a specific technology, even if it can be used for a few different sub-cases.
Yours,
Joel

On 1/15/2026 10:58 AM, Italo Busi wrote:

Hi Joel,



Thanks a lot for your review and comment.



I am not sure there are MPLS technology specific identities in section 3.1.1 since, as far as I am aware of, they are also used/applicable to other technologies (e.g., OTN).



There are some technology-specific derived identities for switching-capabilities and lsp-encoding-types which are an exception and we have added some text to indicate this exception.



The reason for the exception is that these identities have been already defined in RFC 8776 and we have decided to keep them here to maintain backward compatibility with RFC 8776.



Is there any other metric that you think are MPLS technology-specific, besides these exceptions?



Thanks, Italo



-----Original Message-----

From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>

Sent: martedì 23 dicembre 2025 21:32

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

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

Subject: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart review



Document: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update

Title: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering

Reviewer: Joel Halpern

Review result: Ready with Nits



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review

Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the

IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.



For more information, please see the FAQ at



<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ><https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.



(My apologies for the lateness of this review.)



Document: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20

Reviewer: Joel Halpern

Review Date: 2025-12-23

IETF LC End Date: 2025-12-09

IESG Telechat date: 2026-01-08



Summary:  This document is basically ready for publication as a proposed

standards RFC.   There is one wording issue that I believe should be addressed.



Major issues: N/A



Minor issues:

    I believe that this was mentioned in other reviews, and discussed, but I am

    still having trouble with it,  Section 3.1 says "The "ietf-te-types" module

    (Section 4) contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of

    any specific technology or control-plane instance."  Except that section

    3.1.1 then defines multiple MPLS specific identities.  Which are clearly

    technology specific.  If you have a narrower meaning of "specific

    technology" in mind, please use wording that conveys that meaning.



Nits/editorial comments: N/A