Re: [mpls] Working Group Adoption Poll on draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

Much as I appreciate your comments, and I agree with the technical
aspects of them. The references and the inconsistencies should be
fixed. However, I have a little bit different view of what should
be done.

It is clear that we need a YANG module for LSP Ping.

It is unlikely that there will be another document.

This document has been very slow developing, the first version is
from 2015.

I think that we should say that this is "a good enough starting
point", and that there are thing that need to be fixed before
publication, e.g the RPCs mentioned by Acee, and the lack of references
and the potential inconsistencies pointed out by you.

To put the working group in control of the draft and make sure that it
progress well I want to adaopt it as a working group document. The
only thing I believe is necessary is that the authors acknowledge that
the issues pointed out needs to be addressed.

/Loa

On 2019-02-20 19:30, tom petch wrote:
> Not support
> 
> The YANG module is very weak on references which makes it hard for me to
> be sure but there seems to be a mismatch between e.g. FEC classes in
> RFC8029 and the YANG module.
> 
> Thus RFC809 has
>             1          5         LDP IPv4 prefix
> with a one byte prefix length and four byte prefix.
> 
> The YANG module has
>        enum ip-prefix {
>          value "0";
>          description "IPv4/IPv6 prefix";
> and
>          choice target-fec {
>            case ip-prefix {
>              leaf ip-address {
>                type inet:ip-address;
>                description "IPv4/IPv6 Prefix";
> where ip-address has no concept of prefix length how can that be
> configured?.
> 
> There are many such instances IMHO; having references in the YANG module
> to sections of RFC8029 would make this more apparent.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loa Andersson" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>;
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:35 AM
> 
>> Working Group,
>>
>> This is to start a two week poll on adopting
>> draft-zheng-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-cfg-10
>> as a MPLS working group document.
>>
>> Please send your comments (support/not support) to the mpls working
>> group mailing list ([e-mail]). Please give a technical
>> motivation for your support/not support, especially if you think that
>> the document should not be adopted as a working group document.
>>
>> We have done an IPR poll for this document. All the co-authors have
>> responded to the IPR poll that they are unaware of any IPRs that
> relates
>> to this draft.
>>
>> All, the contributors (with one exception) have responded to the IPR
>> poll that they are unaware of any IPRs that relates to this draft.
>>
>> The contributor that has not responded has left his former employment
>> and is no longer on the MPLS wg mailing list. The wg chairs has
> decided
>> to go ahead with the wgap. If there is any concerns about this, please
>> speak up in the mailing list.
>>
>> There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
>>
>> The working group adoption poll ends March 6, 2019.
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>> mpls wg co-chair
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert
>> Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]