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

[Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>]

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]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>