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

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer,

We agree that the references would be helpful, and we have added the
statement to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-18.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>