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

Hi All,

I concur with the authors - this looks good to me. It has the generic MSD
as well as the ones specific to MPLS and SRv6.

Thanks,
Ketan

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 7:57 PM Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tarek, et al,
>
> On Apr 9, 2024, at 10:17, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> 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?
>
>
> I think this would be the best solution given the problem we have in the
> IETF with timely publication of YANG models. The models take forever and by
> the time we get to last call there are new standards and there are always
> differing opinions on how they could be refactored based on the new
> information.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Tarek
>
>
>
> *From: *Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, April 8, 2024 at 7:49 PM
> *To: *Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Reshad Rehman <
> reshad@yahoo.com>, <liu.yao71@zte.com.cn>, Acee Lindem <
> acee.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang@ietf.org <
> draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org<mpls@ietf.org>, MPLS
> Working Chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
> *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 <tsaad.net@gmail.com> 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 <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 26, 2024 at 1:15 AM
> *To: *Reshad Rehman <reshad@yahoo.com>
> *Cc: *<liu.yao71@zte.com.cn>, Acee Lindem <acee.ietf@gmail.com>, Tarek
> Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang@ietf.org <
> draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>, MPLS
> Working Chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
> *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 <reshad@yahoo.com> 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 <
> acee.ietf@gmail.com> 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, liu.yao71@zte.com.cn 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 <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
> > To: mpls@ietf.org <mpls@ietf.org>;
> > Cc: MPLS Working Chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>;
> draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec@ietf.org <
> draft-ietf-mpls-egress-tlv-for-nil-fec@ietf.org>;
> > Date: 2024年03月05日 22:14
> > Subject: [mpls] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-msd-yang
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > 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 (mpls@ietf.org).
> > 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
> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>