Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-08.txt

Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> Wed, 20 March 2019 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 846D612AF7F for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 rWBKzuP1aImR for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:19:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x12c.google.com (mail-it1-x12c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2945127598 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x12c.google.com with SMTP id e24so32410803itl.1 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CfjVAM3cTi8G0TZOD19cGG0mDe6DZStF6jWWW1irDBU=; b=n3ut8/EGGTGgEtFejPvaOo3L1iTwJc0mmoqFkW+sSx4zs3ZRtezZDQwwgrCSViOmu9 FVHYH2YQbzVVmBp5pSirmzT0xjoij3IA8nvQFBvbDbsyNNMtz5weYkD+mD6uUICplUIV BHs9QPB03OFOHGXu9doIZdOpqi3gU90zV+Dvy3YVbWNSqlMRnXeMprEjuNs8iWf5TYJP 8rBrkmHtVUOueVGH1jNlXfM1R44p/IPnGdNsTf5LDjchJG4Ei1CuQwAzkbGvb1WBTQSX Ahtl3hqH/pp3Tj2jx9exCoembCkSoNLIoY6+krBAPaIFteFoDEdHgtL2XbMO1r/mwz64 R3IQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CfjVAM3cTi8G0TZOD19cGG0mDe6DZStF6jWWW1irDBU=; b=hMuaWHiNG1wiAt0Qu80TuMihBfOiJE6MeU6HXN01fx/poji0gXgjHo7I5wjFV3zTWv 4oXpXWS8F7rJhPNIlj9FKnbcsHYV8LYksQn66KIEb/LECutvwtezLC6c4Z/3C5mkHpC/ I2sbYTyaqKMpge8htMD3/DSESiBsbpB6R55gjTob5ESC4rs/+f9DZV3mnA82ONHeGblx TMaLAZ0PB1WB7NTXID76w4SN77KDEP56tBnY7ItSSqw2af+fNpkU2CghSEZ/6M4SqWmU HXeL67h0DFbxQokOVzwjvRw6qMpbXhxYInUviSwomUnjXciqllHyZLUrgXh71znNMg0T cetg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWc6ipJ0TSG+SUy+kq7wn1c9ciFNoEebGZD22eMEwEwzIAxtx/D Rx/RyzSXufV02x+/c8bU/pk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxlf6PPsTq1wZiRSiJD1oe/eZI5A58k06fX4JAOU4m2GZcovc/gmhvTXz0E/iJoygYMYDxP7w==
X-Received: by 2002:a24:4741:: with SMTP id t62mr5386607itb.110.1553098772138; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([52.96.29.13]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v16sm1055024itc.7.2019.03.20.09.19.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
CC: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-08.txt
Thread-Index: ATAxNDQ2i0LOojKGVyarzaBWsO/NHTAwMTkxd0pWZXMwMDQzMTAxNDQ2MDZEQzYwMDY5Mb4Z9af2
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:19:30 +0000
Message-ID: <BN8PR06MB62895FED26F102AC9E6C5268FC410@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <155155736768.27158.1653954565392604255@ietfa.amsl.com> <016901d4d379$a1e91e60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAHVfGYrtzs_Q+7Q1v2yeTmhjKRMarVZOD_1kynOJVxHFcpmZVw@mail.gmail.com> <068601d4d4e3$c5dc4980$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <BN8PR06MB62890074D29EA4440AC6F170FC4D0@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <BN8PR06MB62891CBCD1C236D82C172682FC4D0@BN8PR06MB6289.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <034601d4de79$44f06000$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <034601d4de79$44f06000$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/j_tCjG3yRlcuBVtMSwFmu1H5j1I>
Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-08.txt
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 16:19:36 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the feedback (as usual). See inline..

On 3/19/19, 1:31 PM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; wrote:

    ---- Original Message -----
    From: "Tarek Saad" <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;
    Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 7:13 PM
    
    > Thanks Tom. The comments are addressed in version -09:
    > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-09
    >
    > And diff:
    > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-09
    
    Indeed they are.  Two more technical thoughts
    
    IANA Considerations has
    
          prefix:     ietf-mpls-static-extended
    
    which I was about to say was rather long for a prefix and then I saw
    
       module ietf-mpls-static-extended { ...
         prefix "mpls-static-ext";
    
    which is not so long, probably short enough (if that is the right one!).
    
    Second, I am wont to check such statements as
           leaf lsp-priority-hold { type uint8 {
               range "0..7";  }
             description "LSP hold priority";
    against the original specification, since I know of rtgwg YANG modules
    where the YANG contradicts the published RFC; but there is no reference
    clause for objects such as this one, so I would have to go digging for

[TS]: the reference is RFC3209, section 4.7.1. We can add it next chance we get to make edits.

      Holding Priority

         The priority of the session with respect to holding resources,
         in the range of 0 to 7.  The value 0 is the highest priority.
         Holding Priority is used in deciding whether this session can
         be preempted by another session.

Regards,
Tarek

    the relevant RFC, which was easy in 2001 because there were so few RFC
    but now ...
    
    If you add references, I will go look up the relevant sections - if not,
    ...
    
    Up to you:-)
    
    Tom Petch
    
    > Regards,
    > Tarek
    >
    > On 3/8/19, 1:14 PM, "Tarek Saad" <tsaad.net@gmail.com>; wrote:
    >
    >     Hi Tom,
    >
    >     Thanks. We'll unify to "Mbps" and keep this consistent in units
    and description.
    >
    >     Regards,
    >     Tarek
    >
    >     On 3/7/19, 7:48 AM, "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; wrote:
    >
    >         Tarek
    >
    >         One point I keep noticing but do not think I have raised
    before is
    >
    >               units mbps;
    >               description
    >                 "Bandwidth in Mbps,
    >
    >         I have known systems fail because one party was using mbps,
    another
    >         Mbps, so seeing a mix of the two, as here, raises a flag for
    me.  I note
    >         that
    >         draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types
    >         has
    >                units "Mbps";
    >         which I prefer - if they really mean Mbps and not mbps; I have
    my
    >         doubts! - but then
    >          draft-ietf-l2sm-l2vpn-service-model-10
    >         has
    >                 units "mbps";
    >                 default "10";  description
    >                   "LACP speed. By default, the lacp speed is 10Mbps.";
    >
    >         Perhaps in the context of MPLS there is no ambiguity but it
    would be
    >         nice to have consistency at least within an I-D.
    >
    >         Tom Petch
    >
    >         ----- Original Message -----
    >         From: "Tarek Saad" <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;
    >         Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2019 2:53 PM
    >
    >
    >         > Hi Tom,
    >         >
    >         > As usual, thanks for your review on this one and for your
    patience.
    >         More
    >         > Inline..
    >         >
    >         > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:36 PM tom petch
    <ietfc@btconnect.com>; wrote:
    >         >
    >         > > A long and winding road!
    >         > >
    >         > >  module ietf-mpls-static {
    >         > > .....
    >         > >    import ietf-routing-types {
    >         > >      prefix "rt-types";
    >         > >      reference "RFC8294: Common YANG Data Types";
    >         > >
    >         > > I see, in the RFC Index,
    >         > >
    >         > > 8294 Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area.
    >         > > i.e. a different title
    >         > >
    >         > > [TS]: yes, unfortunately a deja vu (fixed in another
    module). We'll
    >         take
    >         > care of this in the new version.
    >         >
    >         > >
    >         > > module ietf-mpls-static-extended {
    >         > > ....
    >         > >   import ietf-routing {    prefix "rt";
    >         > >     reference "RFC6991: Common YANG Data Types";
    >         > > I suggest
    >         > >      reference "RFC8349: A YANG Data Model for Routing
    Management";
    >         > >
    >         > > [TS]: yes, will take of this.
    >         >
    >         >  reference "RFC XXXX: Extended YANG Data Model for MPLS
    Static LSPs";
    >         > > um - I see this I-D as titled
    >         > > A YANG Data Model for MPLS Static LSPs
    >         > >
    >         > > [TS]: OK for this one too.
    >         >
    >         > Regards,
    >         > Tarek
    >         >
    >         >
    >         > >
    >         > > Tom Petch
    >         > >
    >         > >
    >         > > ----- Original Message -----
    >         > > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>;
    >         > > To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>;
    >         > > Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>;
    >         > > Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2019 8:09 PM
    >         > >
    >         > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
    Internet-Drafts
    >         > > directories.
    >         > > > This draft is a work item of the Multiprotocol Label
    Switching WG
    >         of
    >         > > the IETF.
    >         > > >
    >         > > >         Title           : A YANG Data Model for MPLS
    Static LSPs
    >         > > >         Authors         : Tarek Saad
    >         > > >                           Rakesh Gandhi
    >         > > >                           Xufeng Liu
    >         > > >                           Vishnu Pavan Beeram
    >         > > >                           Igor Bryskin
    >         > > > Filename        : draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-08.txt
    >         > > > Pages           : 18
    >         > > > Date            : 2019-03-02
    >         > > >
    >         > > > Abstract:
    >         > > >    This document contains the specification for the MPLS
    Static
    >         Label
    >         > > >    Switched Paths (LSPs) YANG model.  The model allows
    for the
    >         > > >    provisioning of static LSP(s) on Label Edge Router(s)
    LER(s)
    >         and
    >         > > >    Label Switched Router(s) LSR(s) devices along a LSP
    path
    >         without
    >         > > the
    >         > > >    dependency on any signaling protocol.  The MPLS
    Static LSP
    >         model
    >         > > >    augments the MPLS base YANG model with specific data
    to
    >         configure
    >         > > and
    >         > > >    manage MPLS Static LSP(s).
    >         > > >
    >         > > >
    >         > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
    >         > > >
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang/
    >         > > >
    >         > > > There are also htmlized versions available at:
    >         > > >
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-08
    >         > > >
    >
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-08
    >         > > >
    >         > > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
    >         > > >
    https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-08
    >         > > >
    >         > > >
    >         > > > 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.
    >         > > >
    >         > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
    >         > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
    >         > > >
    >         > > > _______________________________________________
    >         > > > I-D-Announce mailing list
    >         > > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org
    >         > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
    >         > > > Internet-Draft directories:
    http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
    >         > > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
    >         > >
    >         > > _______________________________________________
    >         > > mpls mailing list
    >         > > mpls@ietf.org
    >         > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
    >         > >
    >         >
    >
    >
    >
    >