Re: [mpls] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-06

Tarek Saad <> Sat, 12 October 2019 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D042812088F; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3eu9d_k2a7Ku; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537D7120013; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a15so11344324edt.6; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=uNky0AUdQb//9vSRs6ADXs85N0FpYqjqFwMQiy0zN0U=; b=oW+M3zwuv+bAuIK6qxfiXJHdGQ9Rys/R0fYUnsIElOVGVK2voLh54x5iP0IXQV8Sxf mDICZQu/sL07xs7yxbbjZ33Wiws6fOYdHaQF1nuS/CPSrPdpX1obSn9VXNkDh0fGobnE AvMQVCfcrVrsMiYrtayL/dAkVvbSS5tL82qAryTz2ECz30kGh6K58x3/6khRWVJvq9Xb nD/beRzyH8Xy5THfnu+yHn0DHv2GFAvnKVXiSEvoDBjUiiKne7ge1Q8LKWgEXADfX364 da+ikCboIKx5j2juV36lmLH5Hv7Rkmku2pSND9DqfI7DmBokgpJ0zOlimmFfkmy0Nxau se4w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=uNky0AUdQb//9vSRs6ADXs85N0FpYqjqFwMQiy0zN0U=; b=lToeCJliaR9GLEiuB500Lly7h3caAASxfzLMeZjEawX+i+/KJisLKrJFgdRn07bzGt zJJAshIjCc4ESwhbYolP5zfquqfNHrd9274C3zI5NrYdU6nefCleyGadn41UE1+yHWuY tvRSbOGKnsCEcJgczrCQb+JqevD/n6X1JfhoMwSnwpzMwFSqt9FQuQRax1vVzIshwMO7 PmiUPYOz50aPskmFCef3MjhFi102TopaocBeajN65PLHv+/ptiLkkQ8MfmxwG86fWMlx gRMja+kOrGX6hodD53Ug0Qq2M+SDqZImSs08myYXewLUtW2UpiDzp4HBHAnGsIvXv9qS 6krA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVGVHeNO7SMSgY7hr8jlbKhAoCd4YtKGxi/na21aVwWfTST+aSg 5EGDHzMnMCDbPra5C2FA3uY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwgtFOBpkFiT+SHUc9X6At6z1dkHXbqqRDAAKnDGnuEUE2nWaFDAEa5ebjJ0S5wkrbhjY84kg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4d95:: with SMTP id s21mr19985664eju.175.1570901730693; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:35:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2603:1036:301:21db::5]) by with ESMTPSA id ay13sm1656963ejb.81.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:35:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <>
To: tom petch <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-06
Thread-Index: ATAzMjEz2+M9tDW9oYBv+t446mhBzzA3NTAzMDBkZjHHmKWwVA==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 17:35:27 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <06af01d57dcf$ba69dd20$>
In-Reply-To: <06af01d57dcf$ba69dd20$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 17:35:35 -0000

Thanks Tom.

Authors, please look into those comments and update back. 
We will progress the draft once we have those addressed.


On 10/8/19, 8:00 AM, "tom petch" <>; wrote:

    Well, yes.  I also commented about
    "   [Ed Note: Some of the topics in the above list are to be addressed/
       extended in a later revision of this document]."
    "8.  Open Items
       A list of open items that are to be addressed in future revisions of
       this document follows:
       o  Specify default values for configuration parameters"
    both of which I would see as needing fixing before going further.
    Nothing wrong with describing options for future work in an RFC but, as
    written, it reads to me as if this I-D needs further work.
    And I was hoping for a version where the line length was fixed, making
    it easier to read, before submitting other comments.  I did note
    / alongwith  /along with /
                         +-- rw some_ldp_container
    I do not understand this
    I suggest expand on first use VRF FRR AF
    /address-familty /address-family /
    (or  just AF)
    stands for both
    "Base YANG Data Model for MPLS mLDP"
    "A YANG Data Model for MPLS LDP"
    the first of which does not exist:-)  I suggest using XXXX for this I-D
    and YYYY for MPLS LDP
       "         MP capabilities need to be explicitly enabled under
                container capability.";
    I am uncertain which container this refers to - I need  a longer path
    Tom Petch
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Tarek Saad" <>;
    To: <>;
    Cc: <>;; <>;; "tom petch"
    Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 8:27 PM
    Subject: Re: WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
    This WGLC is now closed.
    There are comments that were received from Tom related to line length
    exceptions in the draft. Can those be addressed before we can proceed
    From: Tarek Saad <>;
    Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:34 PM
    To: "";
    Cc: ""; <>;, "";
    Subject: WGLC, IPR and implementation poll for
    Working Group,
    This email starts WG Last Call, IPR and implementation poll for
    draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-yang-06. This WGLC ends on 9/27.
    Please review the document and send any comments to the mpls wg mailing
    list (<>).
    If you’re a co-author/contributor, please explicitly respond to this
    email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant
    undisclosed IPR.
    If you're not a co-author/contributor, you need to respond only if you
    are aware of any relevant IPR not yet disclosed in conformance with IETF
    Currently there are no disclosed IPRs that can be found here:
    We are also polling for any existing implementation.
    Tarek (for the MPLS WG Chairs)