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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Leeyoung
> Sent: 05 October 2018 19:47
> To: Lou Berger; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 1:08 PM
> To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]]
> >
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6:05 PM
> >
> > To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >
> > 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> >
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:32 PM
> >
> > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >
> > > 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:54 PM
> >
> > >> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; Giuseppe
> >
> > >> Fioccola <[e-mail]>; Dhruv Dhody
> >
> > >> <[e-mail]>; Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>;
> > >> Leeyoung
> >
> > >> <[e-mail]>; Qin Wu <[e-mail]>
> >
> > >> 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
> >
> > >> [e-mail]
> >
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> > >>
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > Teas mailing list
> >
> > > [e-mail]
> >
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> >
> > > Teas mailing list
> >
> > > [e-mail]
> >
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas