From nobody Mon Mar 6 10:01:02 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE11C14CE45; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:00:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X25zTEBd2Ld7; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:00:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vs1-xe30.google.com (mail-vs1-xe30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E8A5C151549; Mon, 6 Mar 2023 10:00:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-xe30.google.com with SMTP id o32so9935430vsv.12; Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:00:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678125650; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5IvUTVEOiCeSKdlv6j+OcM4gL1nMXOlGIuFL9P8a3HE=; b=bYaWwmxC25X7FGckZvQWEDOcncxbO7oaGYxG3iuxHPuVKc2URtGUXKeUI5J8BM5rhB vkIv6XGCvi2Y2LpOctAEYyI83BO2wqleoHTM3fLY0w63c0vCfL+3wTFAIRCtklf03LY6 arD5kl+A6Y6quzrgkX9PpBq/UXwfFFKKILtt03PjMcwNaohiS1X0BXqTECVuNTpZ90JE 9HN8d4+t6NwQjBEUwBjVCrQGmlOJI45uoE60gYNPwLlkDeE+vXLUpK4RDM8n/KiI5Ryc o8EsZfgip7tF8nURQEktq1Wka5VyPtOvBN7yNoUVNf8dr9kM9w+VoGqZT/8uDkRBxJ6H izzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678125650; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=5IvUTVEOiCeSKdlv6j+OcM4gL1nMXOlGIuFL9P8a3HE=; b=oZVoxaA1PoX++QePDzLOBpXCtJJzX2lE2tw37n/QtabyP32xLEvtxIkzBm1NyPaZhn Akd6iTtROrzAdZdL4jKgZ5uApI0AFMNxKJjI0FiSgHOkP4KC8Vypp0iER0T6yAx7PRkm xmxgV9o3uhfFHRPHx7PcN+K2SaYN+7Lk67XwNW/ElYs5HqbExyyqziTAc4aPNFvEDOYn eIHq30fANxF6VaZzvdkQ/h1unz1t+g/li+zZkP9/BlophJMJHZijslNxpM+AcINTtiSc 6lVZ9mx3ZZxiw75U+T9hblL82+GKJoQj6YUgpinhf969QXZFmtlaHIdHGg3AQYJKZDh6 oRcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWNee4N9NwhGfOTt6+8sXAEycTYSdB8+2Rl1MJbAtKLwKBVZgpK zXYT3wAN0gdUOvLAMUmYa549MqLPSm7KH6n4XHl/UTpmHRc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9SI9lcozHAqMk3Xzde/mbGB+sC7diGc7lOrNJxmsICxUM+Db0Tz8owfVs7HUDS/oaHFG1zFirxu4IEUPQeyTU= X-Received: by 2002:a67:ea49:0:b0:411:a740:c3ea with SMTP id r9-20020a67ea49000000b00411a740c3eamr8018137vso.0.1678125648573; Mon, 06 Mar 2023 10:00:48 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <167129781510.28047.17752207224736630198@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <167129781510.28047.17752207224736630198@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Dhruv Dhody Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 23:30:11 +0530 Message-ID: To: Gyan Mishra Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang.all@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002bf89205f63f13e3" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-20 X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2023 18:00:59 -0000 --0000000000002bf89205f63f13e3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Gyan, Thanks for your review! On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 10:53 PM Gyan Mishra via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Gyan Mishra > Review result: Not Ready > > This draft provides the Yang model for PCEP. > > The Yang model should include all PCEP related extensions and which from > reading the draft I see missing some major components that should be > included > detailed in this review. > > IMHO (with no other hats but that of a WG participant/author), it is very difficult to include everything in the base YANG model while the protocol is constantly being extended. It is okay to get consensus on the base and get it published first. The YANG allows easy augmentation for future protocol extension. Note that we already have a draft related to SRv6 (and SR Policy) - https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01.html adopted in the WG which augments the base YANG model. That said I have gone through the below list and added comments further.... > Minor issues: > > Normative and / or Informative References to the following drafts should be > included as well as I see are missing in the PCEP Yang model itself: > > H-PCE > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8751 > > This was straightforward and thus added to the model now! > SR related content missing from Yang model > > Look for feature "sr" and you will find a lot of nodes related to SR and as I mentioned SRv6 and SR-Policy is kept in a different draft. This also allows us to progress the base PCEP YANG with a further dependency on SPRING YANG documents which are not yet mature! > PCEP Centralized Controller > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9050 > > It is better to have a seperate YANG I-D for PCECC, I was thinking about creating one for all PCECC extensions together. > SR PCE Extension > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664 > > See above points! > SR EPE > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9086 > > See above and moreover I don't see any PCEP YANG attributes for a BGP-LS extension! > SR EXT > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9085 > > Same! > SRv6 PCE extension > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/ > > Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01 > SRv6 PGM > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986 > > Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01 > SRv6 SRH > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754 > > Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01 > SRv6 Compression > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-02 Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01 > > > Transport Network Modernization related GMPLS / MPLS-TP > > PCEP extension for GMPLS > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8282.html > > This has been added now! > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8779/ > > This is already there! > RSVP TE extension for Co routed LSP ( Enhanced RSVP-TE) Allows operators > to use > converged network to support both unidirectional LSP and co-routed on same > MPLS > data plane without changing the MPLS data plane as is with MPLS-TP. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7551.html > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9059 > > These are handled via association already! There is no need for any other nodes. > MPLS-TP Co routed path > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6373 > > What exact change do you want to see in the YANG model for this? > PCEP stateful coloring extension > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color > > > Left for the future! BTW not sure what change in the YANG model needs to be done for this -- note we don't store the constraints (objects / TLVs) in the YANG model. Please see the new update for the I-D posted - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang/ and diff at - https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-21 Please consider updating the review status if you agree with my comments. Otherwise please help provide the exact change you would like to see! Thanks! Dhruv --0000000000002bf89205f63f13e3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Gyan,=C2=A0
Thanks for your revi= ew!=C2=A0

On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 10:53 PM Gyan Mishra via Datatracke= r <noreply@ietf.or= g> wrote:
Reviewer: Gyan Mishra
Review result: Not Ready

This draft provides the Yang model for PCEP.

The Yang model should include all PCEP related extensions and which from reading the draft I see missing some major components that should be includ= ed
detailed in this review.


IMHO (with no other hats but that of a WG participant/author), it = is very difficult to include everything in the base YANG model while the pr= otocol is constantly being extended. It is okay to get consensus on the bas= e and get it published first. The YANG allows easy augmentation for future = protocol extension.=C2=A0

Note that we al= ready have a draft related to SRv6 (and SR Policy) -=C2=A0https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01.ht= ml adopted in the WG which augments the base YANG model.=C2=A0

That said I have gone through the below list and = added comments further....=C2=A0 =C2=A0

=C2=A0
Minor issues:

Normative and / or Informative References to the following drafts should be=
included as well as I see are missing in the PCEP Yang model itself:

H-PCE

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8751


This was straightforward and thus added to the model now!
=C2=A0
SR related content missing from Yang model


Look for feature "sr" and you will find a lot of nodes r= elated to SR and as I mentioned SRv6 and SR-Policy is kept in a different d= raft. This also allows us to progress the base PCEP YANG with a further dep= endency on SPRING YANG documents which are not yet mature!=C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0
PCEP Centralized Controller

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9050


It is better to have a seperate YANG I-D for PCECC, I was thinking= about creating one for all PCECC extensions together.

=C2=A0
SR PCE Extension

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8664


See above points!

=C2=A0
SR EPE

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9086


See above and moreover I don't see any PCEP YANG attributes fo= r a BGP-LS extension!

=C2=A0
SR EXT

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9085


Same!

=C2=A0
SRv6 PCE extension

https://datatracker.ietf.org/do= c/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/


Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01

=C2=A0<= /div>
SRv6 PGM

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8986


Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01

=C2=A0<= /div>
SRv6 SRH

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8754


Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01

=C2=A0<= /div>
SRv6 Compression

https://data= tracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-filsfilscheng-spring-srv6-srh-compression-0= 2

Refer draft-ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-01

=C2=A0=


Transport Network Modernization related GMPLS / MPLS-TP

PCEP extension for GMPLS

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8282.html


This has been added now!

=C2=A0
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8779/


This is already there!

=C2=A0
RSVP TE extension for Co routed LSP ( Enhanced RSVP-TE) Allows operators to= use
converged network to support both unidirectional LSP and co-routed on same = MPLS
data plane without changing the MPLS data plane as is with MPLS-TP.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7551.html

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9059


These are handled via association already! There is no need for an= y other nodes.

=C2=A0
MPLS-TP Co routed path

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6373


What exact change do you want to see in the YANG model for this? <= /div>
=C2=A0
PCEP stateful coloring extension

https://datatracker.ietf.org/d= oc/html/draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-color



Left for the future! BTW not sure what change in the YANG model ne= eds to be done for this -- note we don't=C2=A0store the constraints=C2= =A0(objects / TLVs) in the YANG model.=C2=A0

Please see the new update for the I-D = posted -=C2=A0 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pc= e-pcep-yang/
= and diff at - https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-ie= tf-pce-pcep-yang-21=C2=A0

Please consider updating the review status i= f you agree with my comments. Otherwise please help provide the exact chang= e you would like to see!

Thanks!=C2=A0
Dhruv

=C2=A0
--0000000000002bf89205f63f13e3--