Re: [L3sm] New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt

David Ball <daviball@cisco.com> Mon, 11 September 2017 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <daviball@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29473133190 for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 B068Fmkr0OaP for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07700132ED1 for <l3sm@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13779; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505152542; x=1506362142; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=hRQTtmtGVuIvCYO/NE9MizHl5YWXJcTlCBJ+/q4sN6Y=; b=nC0TQ1RjDRmtdbeldg5w8p8oIcUHQx1EKSKxpLYK9sfK76P8YWtZedH3 dHcST8kDmOMe6xYdYXn6b9tA4FOnTbUvMWs+2cTfDKOHxtvuhgddDwVhe 9O+sLXKMe59ts5qqF9TolAw8VDJwuuEr5s2V6Unjx3hriKSD0G5UU6fCd g=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,379,1500940800"; d="scan'208,217";a="697108560"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Sep 2017 17:55:40 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.208] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-208.cisco.com [10.63.23.208]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8BHtd4C012093; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:55:39 GMT
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, l3sm <l3sm@ietf.org>
Cc: adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AAFC86C@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: David Ball <daviball@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b85886fa-7f8f-3e56-a8cb-7d72c4828fba@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 18:55:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AAFC86C@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0C7443A6A37D79F6F0DB404A"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/Wdc9GpBrODLGC2AQ3Vadm8ky2Lo>
Subject: Re: [L3sm] New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt
X-BeenThere: l3sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: L3VPN Service YANG Model discussion group <l3sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l3sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 17:55:45 -0000

Thanks Qin.

I checked and I think a few things that we agree previously haven't yet 
been incorporated:

  * In Sn 6.12.3.2, regarding the confusion between the second paragraph
    (begining "In the case of a provider-managed or co-managed
    connection, ...") and the bullet about direction - I think we agreed
    to delete the paragraph (at least, you asked on the list if anyone
    objected and I didn't see any replies).  This was issue 9 in my
    comments on draft-02.
  * The provider address and mask are now optional in the case of DHCP,
    as agreed; however, in the case of static, they are still marked as
    mandatory.  I think the following leaves need to have mandatory
    removed as well (issue 11 from draft-02)
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv4/addresses/provider-address
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv4/addresses/mask
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv6/addresses/provider-address
      o l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/ip-connection/ipv6/addresses/mask
  * In the filters container/choice, we agreed to add 'when' statements
    for each case based on the type, to prevent invalid combination of
    the type and filter lists as in the example I posted.  (Issue 13
    from draft-02).
  * For the address-allocation-type leaves, I saw you removed the
    default (as agreed) but also added 'mandatory true' (which was not
    discussed).  Making these leaves mandatory does not address the
    problem - if anything, it makes it worse.  (Issue 15 from draft-02)

Two new comments:

 1. Under the cloud-access list, the "authorized-sites" and
    "denied-sites" have been added back in, in draft-03.  These were
    previously removed because they duplicate the functionality in the
    'list-flavour' choice.
 2. There are a number of leaves that are marked as mandatory or have
    defaults, which I think should not be - sorry for not raising this
    earlier, actually it was only just pointed out to me by someone else:
     1. l3vpn-service/sites/site/security/encryption/layer - this should
        either be optional, or have a 'when' statement that means it
        only exists when encryption is enabled.  If encryption is
        disabled, there is no need to specify the layer.
     2. l3vpn-service/sites/site/security/encryption/encryption-profile/profile
        - same
     3. l3vpn-service/sites/site/service/qos/qos-profile/qos-profile
        (and same under site-network-accesses) - I'm not sure why this
        choice is mandatory, that means one of the options has to be
        specified for both the site and the site-network-access.  I
        think the intent is that it is optional in both places, so it
        can be specified in one or the other.
     4. l3vpn-service/sites/site/site-network-accesses/site-network-access/service/multicast/multicast-address-family/ipv[46]
        - IPv4 has default true but IPv6 has default false; I think they
        should both be default false.


Thanks,

     David


On 06/09/2017 11:25, Qin Wu wrote:
> We have incorporated additional comments from David in v-(03).
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
> Thank David, thanks for L3SM design team help complete this.
>
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> 发送时间: 2017年9月6日 18:18
> 收件人: Qin Wu; Luis Tomotaki; Kenichi Ogaki; Stephane Litkowski
> 主题: New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Qin Wu and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Name:		draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis
> Revision:	03
> Title:		YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery
> Document date:	2017-09-06
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		181
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03
>
> Abstract:
>     This document defines a YANG data model that can be used for
>     communication between customers and network operators and to deliver
>     a Layer 3 provider-provisioned VPN service.  This document is limited
>     to BGP PE-based VPNs as described in RFCs 4026, 4110, and 4364.  This
>     model is intended to be instantiated at the management system to
>     deliver the overall service.  It is not a configuration model to be
>     used directly on network elements.  This model provides an abstracted
>     view of the Layer 3 IP VPN service configuration components.  It will
>     be up to the management system to take this model as input and use
>     specific configuration models to configure the different network
>     elements to deliver the service.  How the configuration of network
>     elements is done is out of scope for this document.
>
>     If approved, this document obsoletes RFC 8049.  The changes are a
>     series of small fixes to the YANG module, and some clarifications to
>     the text.
>
>                                                                                    
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>

-- 
David Ball
<daviball@cisco.com>;