Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I agree with Acee's summary if this can move the draft forward quickly,
please confirm you agree with it.

Ketan, your comments confused me a bit. please confirm.

Thanks,
Yingzhen



On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:40 AM Acee Lindem <[e-mail]> wrote:

> All,
>
> I thought about this again and I want to make sure we've reached
> consensus.
>
> Although the YANG module containing the MSD types (iana-msd-types.yang)
> has a generic name and description, we are going to remove the SRv6 types
> and they will be augmentations in a different document since this is an
> MPLS document?
>
> Is that what we really want to do? It seems a bit anal to me but at this
> point I'm anxious to move forward with this simply document.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> > On Apr 9, 2024, at 1:00 PM, Rahman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Apr 9, 2024, at 5:09 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Makes sense. Thanks Tarek.
> >>
> >>> On Apr 9, 2024, at 7:17 AM, Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Reshad and Mahesh,
> >>>  >> I'm not sure we want to change the file name. One possible
> solution is to remove the identities about SRv6 MSD in the
> iana-msd-types.yang, and add them in the SRv6 YANG draft.
> >>> [TS]: Given the model is MPLS specific, would this address your
> concerns?
> >>>  Regards,
> >>> Tarek
> >>>   From: Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
> >>> Date: Monday, April 8, 2024 at 7:49 PM
> >>> To: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>, Reshad Rehman <
> [e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, MPLS
> Working Chairs <[e-mail]>
> >>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang
> >>> Hi,
> >>>  Sorry for the late reply due to travels.
> >>>  Thanks Tarek for the pointer to Ketan's email. The draft only
> included MPLS MSD at the beginning, then Ketan suggested we follow the IANA
> MSD types registry, so we added the iana-msd-types.yang module, which also
> includes SRv6 MSD types. The ietf-mpls-msd.yang augments the base MPLS
> model defined in RFC 8960, and it can only query MPLS MSD types. Note:
> there are msd-base-mpls and mpls-base-srh defined in the iana module to
> separate MPLS and SRv6 MSD types.
> >>>  I'm not sure we want to change the file name. One possible solution
> is to remove the identities about SRv6 MSD in the iana-msd-types.yang, and
> add them in the SRv6 YANG draft.
> >>>  Suggestions and comments are welcome.
> >>>  Thanks,
> >>> Yingzhen
> >>>  On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 8:52 AM Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi Mahesh,
> >>>  SPRING WG was in the loop of updates to this draft. There was a
> request for the IANA MSD Types registry to be mirrored into YANG which I
> believe is the current state
> >>>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/rdjYEGVEhx3T9xoVWMu-DkQdBjM/
> >>>  Regards,
> >>> Tarek
> >>>  From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
> >>> Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 1:15 AM
> >>> To: Reshad Rehman <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: <[e-mail]>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>, Tarek
> Saad <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, MPLS
> Working Chairs <[e-mail]>
> >>> Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang
> >>> +1 to Reshad’s comment.
> >>>  mpls-chairs, if the definitions are beyond MPLS, e.g. SRv6, has this
> been socialized in spring WG?
> >>>  On Mar 26, 2024, at 4:10 PM, Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>  Hi Acee, all,
> >>>  From a quick look at the YANG, I see non MPLS-specific identities
> such as msd-srh-max-end-pop. If those stay, ietf-msd.yang seems to be a
> more appropriate name to me.
> >>>  Regards,
> >>> Reshad.
> >>>  On Thursday, March 21, 2024, 11:10:29 AM EDT, Acee Lindem <
> [e-mail]> wrote:   Hi Yao,
> >>>  I agree we should update this to reflect the extended applicability
> of MSD to different types.
> >>>  I'm wonder if we should also change the module name to simply
> ietf-msd.yang. The argument for
> >>> changing the name is that MSD is being extended beyond MPLS. The
> argument against this is that this
> >>> module only augments the ietf-mpls.yang module.
> >>>  Opinions? I've also copied Mahesh (Ops AD focusing on YANG) and
> Reshad (YANG doctor and reviewer).
> >>>  Thanks,
> >>> Acee
> >>>  > On Mar 6, 2024, at 3:02 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > I support the progression of the draft.
> >>> > And I have one comment after reading the lasest version. From my
> reading of section 4, it defines YANG module not only for MPLS MSDs, but
> also for SRv6 MSDs (i.e, msd-base-srh). But the title and abstract of the
> draft claims that the YANG module is defined for MPLS MSDs, without
> mentioning SRv6. It confused me a little bit.
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards,
> >>> > Yao
> >>> > Original
> >>> > From: TarekSaad <[e-mail]>
> >>> > To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
> >>> > Cc: MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>;
> >>> > Date: 2024年03月05日 22:14
> >>> > Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > mpls mailing list
> >>> > [e-mail]
> >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>> >
> >>> > Dear WG,
> >>> >
> >>> > This email starts a two-week working group last call for
> draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang [1].
> >>> >
> >>> > Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are
> opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your
> concern. If you support it, please indicate that you have read the latest
> version, and it is ready for publication in your opinion. As always, review
> comments and nits are most welcome.
> >>> >
> >>> > Please send your comments to the mpls wg mailing list ([e-mail]
> ).
> >>> > If necessary, comments may be sent unidirectional to the WG chairs.
> >>> >
> >>> > This poll runs until the 19th of March 2024.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thank you,
> >>> > Tarek (for the MPLS WG co-chairs)
> >>> >
> >>> > [1]  draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Mahesh Jethanandani
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mahesh Jethanandani
> >> [e-mail]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>