Re: [RTG-DIR] defining signaling parameters for GMPLS

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 11:51 AM


> Tom,
>
> Good catch!
>
> I'll talk this over with the various co chairs and come back with a
> suggestion on how to reconcile the LSR and TEAS drafts.

Well, yes, but bear in mind that we have these values defined in IANA
and, for me, definitions in IANA should take precedence, ie the best,
the only solution for me is an IANA-maintained YANG module e.g.
iana-gmpls-param

Also, what I am hinting is that while the expertise of the routing area
is need to say what needs defining, NETMOD has the greater expertise of
turning that into a YANG module ie a two-stage process.

Tom Petch

> Lou
>
> (TEAS Co-chair)
>
> On 1/2/2019 5:20 AM, tom petch wrote:
> > The TEAS WG is producing a te-types I-D which contains definitions,
in
> > YANG form, for many of the signaling parameters used by GMPLS.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the LSR WG has a need to defind the signaling parameters
used
> > for TE and so has created its own definitions thereof.
> >
> > There is an expired I2RS I-D with similar definitions.
> >
> > Perhaps, in future, the MPLS or CCAMP WG will also find a need to
define
> > these parameters and create their own definitions.
> >
> > Meanwhile, these parameters have, for over 15 years, been registered
> > with IANA.
> >
> > Defining things good, defining things in standards multiple times,
not
> > so good.
> >
> > I think there is a need for these parameters, some, although perhaps
not
> > all, of
> >
> >
http://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameter
> > s.xhtml#gmpls-sig-parameters-3
> >
> > to be turned into a YANG module for all WG to use.  Such an exercise
has
> > been successfully carried out by the NETMOD WG for interface
definitions
> > (RFC7224).
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg