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

[[e-mail]]

Hi Acee,

To move the SRv6 MSDs from this draft and add them back to msd.yang in an separate document seems a little bit too complicated but the procedure for this draft is simpler.
If we want to keep all the MSDs in this document, I suppose review from 6MAN/SPRING is required for the SRv6 part , but this will slow down the progress of the draft.
Both looks reasonable. It's based on the authors' choice...

Yao

Original


From: AceeLindem <[e-mail]>
To: 刘尧00165286;
Cc: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;mpls <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2024年04月11日 07:07
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang

Hi Yao, 
On Mar 26, 2024, at 21:44, [e-mail] wrote:


Hi Acee，
From my point of view,  the name ietf-msd.yang is more generic , considering that this draft already covers the MSDs types defined for SRv6(i.e, msd-srh-max-sl/msd-srh-max-end-pop/msd-srh-max-hen-cap/msd-srh-max-end-d). And defining the YANG models for MPLS MSD and SRv6 MSD in separate documents seems a little bit unnecessary.




While the SRv6 augmentations (including those for MSD) will be in a separate document with the rest of the SRv6 stuff. Best to keep them together and not hold of MPLS. The question is whether or not we need to remove the SRv6 identities from inna-msg.yang and add them back as augmentations in the SRv6 document. 

Thanks,
Acee






Yao










From: AceeLindem <[e-mail]>
To: 刘尧00165286;
Cc: Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]>;MPLS Working Chairs <[e-mail]>;Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>;Reshad Rahman <[e-mail]>;
Date: 2024年03月21日 23:10
Subject: Re: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang

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
>