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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042DD1270B4; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:59:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ALmAZwPgrzOp; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:59:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 960EB1270AB; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:59:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BzAQBMS3ta/xbLJq1TChkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGDIIEXcCiDZYsYoS2FboIDCiWFFgKDQRQBAgEBAQEBAQJrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?kBiNPBxALQgICVwYNCAEBijEQsVOCJyaIUoIKAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?RoFhHWDbIFoKYMFgy8BAQEBAQGBOgEHCwGDNoJlBYpqh2KRXQmIHo1dgh6GJ4N?= =?us-ascii?q?ziAaNeoF5iBeBPDYiYFcRCDMaCBsVGYJqgwqBbkA3AYtPgjwBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,473,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1872083"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Feb 2018 18:59:37 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (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 <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: dromasca@gmail.com, yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com, rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
References: <151802502585.4901.3650492840820191193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <d2df3a86-6f62-c056-e6f3-055e3ecc58ef@cisco.com>
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: <151802502585.4901.3650492840820191193.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------247F35FB120FEFF103A01367"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/LX4pTGFC0Ve-YQvkH9807pOkQvA>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=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
    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>] 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-07. 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.
>
>
> .
>