Re: [Teas] teas-yang-rsvp wasRe: TEAS WG Document Status Reports

Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> Mon, 27 July 2020 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
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 F2FD53A192C; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 SGM-1e6s4PS7; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BB683A1927; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id z6so16746479iow.6; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:accept-language:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=1XdsPSWKgwICtZvNjWKzirk4MyTZOfILY4CxdeNl7c4=; b=sL39nqZIsJw3mRj0uCTiwSOm8wel0GrROCVstBVRLAlZ7bA/Yk9mzEiG72QwC1eoTr BjQSKk76Zir132DsNMkh2wnmwzS/TskP8y5VZ3xVPwKyrnBbjqPkbO/EqG9MDBmNPpDn NVCanARV+vCwbw5/r+Y7ArWOdjlYPAV95NBdpEysQBDPn8fi3oGYuxk6QPeV+8H36VHK ehAKJG+n4AXBFElfSB+6tJw/roUukWu3D0NvBWPQq4e/nvRknLD8nmlfShoIE+MRBIZn s91ZfSdwWkZ4cSZdtMDCQFX6eDEAKPpd3zzdMsHwq+QWQME2gg69a7Yyn1oitIcJKz8r Qlcg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:accept-language:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=1XdsPSWKgwICtZvNjWKzirk4MyTZOfILY4CxdeNl7c4=; b=jkRMANNMK+kvhj0jJtNHrb4pyO+HMACKZq2JyjvDtYl10Vl5VQgdLUH+HrBlO4b3zy Aj18RPtVOvafam+RN+Tq3YLWs2BFm9Y28XimxMKlXzbaah8l2fqXpWcqilzoAOfStfD+ JGklhMV7/k6l1j0bd/kePHZqFMnzV5eu9ybEITAG2Eq6hlu6ZOR599ZWCA1PXj7kSMFX 0nan4qQYU3eHVZ74YzuV69ELAxTW8Ms77AzR0JPPrVEwTXt3dItOn7Ax5ML4iuIHRQiq +iaU2KgSYbQnXM8fIjCNew+weIZeP6EuNDF8PYyQQB4sgtkT+WCOxYL59EeV26exJp7G 6MCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ecG3oY+QeM+b9dXDqBLt/ocGeq3CGAr5x11uJcRFl8aEJgUbG 91v4pT7SX4T3aSkCwmAW2IU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxyOPwxbXjon4ojNtb48GxiFwIFI6gR/UgFnAL1eRf+EdQVQ14ebBTvf0TycZ+zFuU1F/h5HQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:770e:: with SMTP id g14mr25340103jac.94.1595852952382; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:4:9e::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f9sm8335122ilq.9.2020.07.27.05.29.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 05:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] teas-yang-rsvp wasRe: TEAS WG Document Status Reports
Thread-Index: AUY2QzQ2CPf2beYbHIoRmezXvtK7FQ==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:29:10 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR1901MB21509E29E0A9B13A45FE2325FC720@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <B2787AE6-31CA-4DDA-88CC-7C3B6EF6B72F@juniper.net> <DB7PR07MB5340D7119E71B374A6E9D75CA2A70@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/z59Yk9UPtqXJjp0o3Hozw9ndSzw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] teas-yang-rsvp wasRe: TEAS WG Document Status Reports
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: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:29:16 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your review of ID: draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp and for the your comments. We have posted version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-14
Which addresses those comments. Please see inline (look for TS) for more details.

>>>>>>>>>>

    2. draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-11
    Current Status:

    <tp>
    teas-yang-rsvp-12 would benefit from some tweaks
    Abstract confused me into thinking that the Extended model was elsewhere - I think that this needs an explicit mention.
TS: revised abstract to address this.


    Introduction ditto.
TS: revised Introduction to address this.

    Introduction should mention RFC7950 and RESTCONF

    Introduction should mention NMDA support
TS: Addressed.

    1 is wrong
    rt-type I am not familiar with but rt-types is in RFC8294
    key-chain is RFC8177
TS: corrected.

    2.4 lists two RPC but tree diagram lists three, one of which is authentication but authentication is a feature of extended not base - this confuses me
TS: corrected and added the third.

    revision description
    should be 'Initial version' in both modules

    the rpc should probably be NACM default deny all
TS: added.

    IANA Considerations
    URI lack registrant contact
    prefix are not those used in the modules
TS: updated.

    Security
    alsocontrols
TS: corrected.

    RFC5495 needs adding to I-D References
TS: updated references.

Again, thanks much for the comments.

Regards,
Tarek

    Tom Petch






       *   Version -10 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments

      *   Authors published version -12 which addressed all outstanding comments
      *   Authors followed up with YANG Dr. reviewer on closing comments
    Open Issues:

      *   None
    Next Steps:

      *   Proceed to WGLC


    3. draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-te-07
    Current Status:

      *   Version -07 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments
    Open Issues:

      *   Authors working on addressing YANG Dr. comments
    Next Steps:

      *   Folllow-up with YANG Dr. reviewer to close on comments
      *   Proceed to WGLC after addressing

    4. draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-mpls
    Current Status:

      *   Authors discussing augmentation of this module for MPLS-TP
      *   A new module and model is expected
    Open Issues:

      *   Close on MPLS-TP modeling
    Next Steps:

      *   Publish a new revision
      *   Ask for YANG Dr. review



    _______________________________________________
    Teas mailing list
    Teas@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas