Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-06: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <> Wed, 07 February 2018 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042DD1270B4; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:59:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ALmAZwPgrzOp; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960EB1270AB; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:59:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=8787; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518029980; x=1519239580; h=subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=miJkwpCO9Vj9BV9JDmAmL4jup4k6YOFY/TuX+FY/jBY=; b=G8tTnSP5/cC2v9RhQE7inhEEcokgIaqxbF7WFQNMBvbz/pCiJsm+7LII BzCmi8l36aYDtRm+RhjjUzKM1HsHb9wOJbuR5VKjuOfXvIIVD+f54bVwZ wZqlIUZooFRppKtwZ0+LVT3+Rle6qx/tnXzTgyfHYu9CxdiYz4HfJ9m5i g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,473,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1872083"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Feb 2018 18:59:37 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w17Ixao0022051; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:59:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-06: (with COMMENT)
From: Benoit Claise <>
To: The IESG <>
References: <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 19:59:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------247F35FB120FEFF103A01367"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:59:43 -0000

And I forgot. Editorial.
No need to reference again the tree-diagram in:

    The LNE model can be represented using the tree format defined in
<>] as:

Regards, Benoit
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-06: No Objection
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> Please refer to
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> No objection to the document, but a few points must addressed.
> - I agree with Alvaro's point: the example should be corrected.
> - This draft is NMDA compliant: it should be mentioned.
> >From Dan Romascanu's OPS DIR, at least the 3 first three points should be
> addressed (the 4rth one is a nice to have, but a bigger task IMO):
> This is a very useful, well thought and well written document, which reflects
> work and discussions within the RTG and OPS areas. From an operational point of
> view it's a very useful tool in support of network operators that will manage
> and configure logical elements. I believe that the document is almost ready,
> but there are a number of issues that are worth being discussed and addressed
> before approval by the IESG.
> 1. The name and scope of the document as presented in the title and Abstract
> are not exactly reflecting the content. LNEs are not YANG LNEs as the title
> says, and the type of module (a YANG module) being defined is not stated in the
> Abstract. I would suggest that the document actually defines 'A Data Model and
> YANG Module for Logical Network Elements'.
> 2. There is no reference and relationship definition in the document to the
> YANG Data Model for Hardware Management defined in
> Actually the LNEs are
> almost similar with the 'logical entities' that were dropped from the
> netmod-entity work. It is expected that in the future network operators will
> use both data models and the respective YANG modules when managing hardware
> devices on which logical network entities are being run. Even if this
> relationship is not explicitly present in the DM, I believe that it needs to be
> looked at and mentioned in the document.
> 3. In Section 2 I see:
> 'The logical-network-element module augments existing
>     interface management model by adding an identifier which is used on
>     physical interface types to identify an associated LNE.'
> I am wondering why the mentioning of 'physical interface types' here. What if
> the interface type in not 'physical' representing a protocol layer or sublayer
> on the device? After all, if all interfaces to be considered were 'physical' we
> could have augmented the entity hardware module rather than the interfaces
> module, as all physical interfaces are represented there as well.
> 4. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 seem to be written for the benefit and the perspective
> of the implementations writers rather than of the operators. Are there any
> hints, advice, or indications for the operators using the module to manage
> their LNEs? These could be described also in the examples appendices, which are
> otherwise very useful to illustrate and explain the models.
> .