Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-19 editorial

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

I have made an update -22

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-22

On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:48 PM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Some more straightforward comments on -21 for you to consider.
>
> 'referred' appears in several places.  This looks right in its first
> appearance in s.2.1 and in s.8 but elsewhere  I suspect that 'referenced'
> is intended.
>
> Updated to reference as needed, and as you pointed out kept it as
referred where it made sense!



> s.3.1
> the first line of the diagram is indented one character
> /and update/and updates/
> {which has been bugging me for years)
>
>
Fixed!



> s.6
> container underlay
> /Segement/Segment/
>
>
Ack!



> vn-id
> unique but within what scope?  I see users get this sort of thing wrong,
> usually underestimating the scope and then getting duplication and so
> confusion.  I think that unique should always have a some indication of
> scope
>
>
Updated to - "An identifier unique within the scope of the entity that
controls the VN."



> Appendix A
> /this YANG model rely/this YANG module relies/
> [[RFC8776] define/[RFC8776] defines/
>
> HTH
>
>
Thanks for nits!

Happy Holidays!

Dhruv



> Tom Petch
> ________________________________________
> From: Teas <[e-mail]> on behalf of tom petch <
> [e-mail]>
> Sent: 25 October 2023 12:00
> To: Dhruv Dhody; Italo Busi
> Cc: [e-mail]; Sergio Belotti (Nokia); Vishnu Pavan
> Beeram; TEAS WG; TEAS WG Chairs
> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-19
>
> From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 23 October 2023 06:41
>
> Based on the example of node-id that I have seen in the wild (for instance
> here in ODL -
> https://docs.opendaylight.org/projects/bgpcep/en/latest/bgp/bgp-user-guide-topology-provider.html),
> the use of dotted-quad string for URI is common in implementations.
>
> But if I look at the ABNF of URI at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#appendix-A, that is
> incorrect. And YANG tools are unlikely to flag it.
>
> I am happy to make the change that Med suggests, I am also open to any
> guidance from netmod/YANGdoctors if they have it.
>
> <tp>
>
> Meanwhile I have looked at -21 and think that it is in worse shape, with
> more errors than-19.
>
> It is TE where the ants' nest of ID and RFC gets higher by the day and
> ever more obtuse.  I just spent an hour trying to identify the syntax of
> the types  used in s.7.2 and with several can see that they are wrong but
> with others it is just too complicated to tell.
>
> As I said before, I assume that node-id and network-id come from RFC8345
> and so must be type uri; some now are, some are not - needs fixing.
>
> With the example being JSON it is much harder to see what is happening and
> very time consuming to track down the te types.  Some are now uri which I
> do not think that they should be, or at least need to be and making them so
> I think confusing.  Thus I believe topology-id is null or a restricted
> string not a URI.  The examples make it look identical to those that must
> be a URI; this may or not be valid but I think confusing.
>
> I have some editorial comments which I send separately.
>
> Tom Petch
> --
>
> And to answer Tom's original question, we need to include both node-id and
> "ietf-te-topology:te-node-id", and I tried to simplify things by using the
> same value for both and thus leading to the confusion that you had...
>
> --
>
> @ Med - Maybe I can sit with you during the IETF week/hackathon to sort
> out the yang validation via Yangson? I did a test with yanglint earlier...
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 4:11 AM Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Tom, Med,
>