Re: [Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Xufeng,

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 9:30 PM Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
> Thanks for the comments. This section has been re-worded a bit in the
> updated version to clarify. It is reasonable to ask for more explanations,
> for this section, and for some others. The challenge is that a word or two
> might not be sufficient. The TEAS Working Group has discussed such issues,
> and decided to adopt another document *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling>*,
> to describe the use cases, model usages, terminologies, and examples, in
> greater details. Another draft, *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo>*, also
> discusses such a case.
>

(Keeping in mind that I'm a No-Obj ballot, so we're just talking ... if
you're able to point to this work ("to learn more, see ..."), I'd think
that would be helpful without you trying to describe something available in
another document, which would waste your time at best, even if your summary
in this document was perfect.

Do the right thing, of course.

Spencer


> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:04 PM Spencer Dawkins <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: 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-teas-yang-te-topo/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I found myself wondering what the last sentence in
>>
>>   - TE Topology may not be congruent to the routing topology (topology
>>      constructed based on routing adjacencies) in a given TE System.
>>      There isn't always a one-to-one association between a TE-link and
>>      a routing adjacency. For example, the presence of a TE link
>>      between a pair of nodes doesn't necessarily imply the existence of
>>      a routing-adjacency between these nodes.
>>
>> was saying about what IS implied between these nodes. I'm guessing, but
>> this
>> draft seems to assume a relatively low level amount of experience with
>> traffic
>> engineering, so I can imagine readers who could benefit from a word or
>> two of
>> explanation.
>>
>>
>>