Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 17 October 2018 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0611277C8; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 05:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.289
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=1.31, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 oGz_kPOVBVIp; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 05:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE3F4130DC1; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 05:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w9HCLNhd025874; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:21:23 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F0122032; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:21:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 207642203A; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:21:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 950129200 (4.43.114.87.dyn.plus.net [87.114.43.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w9HCLLHO030823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:21:22 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Leeyoung'" <leeyoung@huawei.com>, "'Lou Berger'" <lberger@labn.net>, <draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org>, <teas@ietf.org>
References: <153729682108.8569.6079760050660778983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D063DF0@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5d16d8f4-156f-4c6a-5832-08664417aea3@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D064FCE@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <ca58cd92-e0ea-e479-fa0e-71697bd5be20@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D066D05@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <17db4372-f15c-fc8d-601f-0e843ef7b44a@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D0670DB@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D0670DB@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:21:23 +0100
Message-ID: <06a501d46613$eba248c0$c2e6da40$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AQJTcxmXqqyuahhvurmfVyslH/vhyAJAV2MvAnYKhb8CPIBkJgI1MkfxAvEH4t4BGmQNMwIEEWuzo6uEg5A=
X-Originating-IP: 87.114.43.4
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24160.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--42.412-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--42.412-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24160.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--42.411600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: B0+RG8xpjtTxIbpQ8BhdbODQCXqvSA0snF8rflXuiRW638ZUY6gSd7EI +kQaRrlmO0TQnM3HXWR+V07of0JbbcuY+x+wpWIH8eSmTJSmEv1R3sGN+j7mNBqDU9DIKJzEe8i 3lRudEpNgpdTnHq8QYxMwnTA18ZuwGBntNyPrRBv1RUeLAvHT8oyzstdwoG+PnvbaEOoeixOIMV 4nweffzeXO2KZ7f5RlfQGyt/h3B6Alf6aSpWSsXcOvQCMFyZ9GCQ3xS+zL6e2n5yDc9PwlXGnGa BB9GBKEbcg33InvYf7bZ66o9rNJSqmn1yrwZjjUDPhWwJzVhb6AZr6hinmLqjDJ9a3KikGodM6l ZlmIxv1bNwJxblG/lyLBLPTyOz5UgLUIusOZ/KFT46Ow+EhYOAuK1hIitSIHgrAXgr/AjP1SISR zTzrHds42+6ZHExt2PAsguY1oV7ycjRcjZuZWWfC1l8Gignpr9mnDjfUPq56dCqKtxM6bh3AhPI gOYlWtEFFPZuM+OAqhdPhGuMapRjpI0A0aNTmUsBytgTF4TTTJ5SXtoJPLyCf6nnnZywjV5Jleq mLDfgcJ0T1HHmGhKGXz5iibTJbmqTqeYrtO8MIIVoCLGbl5T/x3eAlFiEvxehTPkBG4eNFXoYnJ E8t84krbayQZKS8gLgtRy1WaoTtGJkKKzaebVsWUKBjERoYTZuNx7eknjx5lmPP/XnGELvea4uH 4Y9hvRCx6w3cVg7E5CZuXcej0o5mRr1k6e+lgHPCema1j/6t9LQinZ4QefNQdB5NUNSsiwYFSk1 Lm1zenmxwscwVeEys3zPQeiEbe+gtHj7OwNO0CpgETeT0ynA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/11f4q4JWByeT4NOO6vQglAFmjk8>
Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:21:53 -0000

So does that mean we're all aligned and on board with this document?
Well, at least as far as agreeing it's a good starting point for bridging the gap between service models (which I love) and ACTN (which Young loves, and which the WG seems to be backing).

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Leeyoung
> Sent: 05 October 2018 19:47
> To: Lou Berger; draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-te-service-
> mapping-yang-11.txt
> 
> Hi Lou,
> 
> Yes, you are correct, the first option is what we have taken. I agree with you that
> the second option does not make much sense.
> 
> Thanks.
> Young
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 1:08 PM
> To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>om>; draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-
> yang@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-te-service-
> mapping-yang-11.txt
> 
> Hi Young,
> 
> 
> On 10/4/2018 10:29 AM, Leeyoung wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > I think we can do the augmentation approach.
> >
> > If we were to augment LxSM models, we have two choices:
> >
> > ·First choice: To have three separate augmented LxSM models so that
> > each LxSM would augment independently from one another.
> >
> > ·Second choice: To have one YANG model where three augmentations take
> > place there, which means all three LxSM models are augmented at the
> > same time.
> >
> > I would think the first choice is what you meant.
> >
> 
> There's certainly room for identifying what is the best approach . This said, I
> actually don't understand the second choice and unsure if it can be legally
> supported (what does it mean for an implementation to support of module that
> includes an augmentation to a non-supported module? maybe it works with
> deviations?) While not sure about this, it sounds / looks like you took the first
> choice.
> 
> Lou
> 
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Young
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6:05 PM
> >
> > To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>om>;
> > draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
> >
> > Young,
> >
> >     There was one comment on the list other than my question, right?
> > Giuseppe's comment basically says it is provider information, right?
> > So isn't this what NACM is all about, i.e., limiting information based
> > on who is asking for it. So I still am unconvinced that the complexity
> > of a new module yields any benefit.
> >
> > Just think of it from a transaction processing perspective.  With the
> > proposed approach, a client that wants to understand the mapping has
> > to
> >
> > (1) read the service module), (2) search the service module for a
> > mapping, and then (3) read the related TE information.  With the
> > augmentation approach (2) is eliminated and during processing (1) it's
> > possible to see if the TE information even exists.  This reduces
> > processing on both clients and servers.
> >
> > While not a major point, I do think the added complexity should be
> > more strongly justified.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > On 9/25/2018 5:57 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lou,
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I think this has been discussed in the mailing list when you asked
> > the opinion on this issue. Please see the attachment.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Please also refer to the IETF 102 slides (in particular page 3) for
> > further information on this model and why the co-authors think it is
> > beneficial to have a separate model than augmenting three separate
> > service models.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > > Young
> >
> > >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:32 PM
> >
> > > To: draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for
> >
> > > draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Hi Young/authors,
> >
> > >
> >
> > >       Thanks for the update.  I remain a bit confused/concerned that
> >
> > > this document adds a new standalone model rather than taking the
> >
> > > simpler approach of just augmenting the existing
> > > service/connectivity
> >
> > > modules with the pointers to the TE/VN/tunnel information (perhaps
> >
> > > using
> >
> > > groupings?)
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Can you elaborate on your thinking here?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > > Lou
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On 9/18/2018 2:55 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> >
> > >> Hi,
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> The revision is to fix YANG errors caused by the L1CSM YANG update.
> > No content changes.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Thanks.
> >
> > >> Young
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> >
> > >> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> >
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:54 PM
> >
> > >> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>om>; Giuseppe
> >
> > >> Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>it>; Dhruv Dhody
> >
> > >> <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant@gmail.com>om>;
> > >> Leeyoung
> >
> > >> <leeyoung@huawei.com>om>; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> >
> > >> Subject: New Version Notification for
> >
> > >> draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> A new version of I-D, draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
> >
> > >> has been successfully submitted by Young Lee and posted to the IETF
> > repository.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Name: draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang
> >
> > >> Revision:       11
> >
> > >> Title:                             Traffic Engineering and Service
> > Mapping Yang Model
> >
> > >> Document date: 2018-09-18
> >
> > >> Group: Individual Submission
> >
> > >> Pages: 22
> >
> > >> URL:
> > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping
> > -yang-11.txt
> >
> > >> Status:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yan
> > g/
> >
> > >> Htmlized:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11
> >
> > >> Htmlized:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mappin
> > g-yang
> >
> > >> Diff:
> > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-ya
> > ng-11
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Abstract:
> >
> > >>      This document provides a YANG data model to map customer
> > >>service
> >
> > >>      models (e.g., the L3VPM Service Model) to Traffic Engineering
> > >>(TE)
> >
> > >>      models (e.g., the TE Tunnel or the Abstraction and Control of
> >
> > >>      Traffic Engineered Networks Virtual Network model). This model
> > >>is
> >
> > >>      referred to as TE Service Mapping Model and is applicable to
> > >>the
> >
> > >>      operator's need for seamless control and management of their
> > >>VPN
> >
> > >>      services with TE tunnel support.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>      The model is principally used to allow monitoring and
> > diagnostics of
> >
> > >>      the management systems to show how the service requests are
> > >>mapped
> >
> > >>      onto underlying network resource and TE models.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> > tools.ietf.org.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> The IETF Secretariat
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> _______________________________________________
> >
> > >> Teas mailing list
> >
> > >> Teas@ietf.org
> >
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> > >>
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > Teas mailing list
> >
> > > Teas@ietf.org
> >
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > Teas mailing list
> >
> > > Teas@ietf.org
> >
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > Teas@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas