Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 February 2021 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@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 E01083A1747 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:51:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 FDqa0DV99f1p for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62b.google.com (mail-ej1-x62b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62b]) (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 4925F3A1740 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62b.google.com with SMTP id do6so3876251ejc.3 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:51:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=63j9CBaAry0Ep6MEDN3M6vAi2XdLmnBZ2NbTJuTei88=; b=cbR1DT1Eg6UxjuLpMUXDhXuhH2ze1Iq7zHetNXBwswptKruPoLFXZMe5d6hRjuQEWO GnE31KBXzpAikxsX7kkzABgpDMkw8diH5mggsd7+4SPcSi59GJW8oW3EE3cpFP/iTAmi 3V/nTknd3MH7iPX1DgKE9RDunshzBEJ777uXXS5qeiiRmWem1b5QPA/3kk1eNpjTJRMI BauqGMU2efuh/5WP2tj2MK/YQ3tFQ1Dncoj4cSrY0UlmiodXUS4KnSgmKeWO+o0U+gqr YXcnJMgRi3RxReROGFLL1H8SM7OLglZelI1pNj+XfYB4HqI/a3Wi1Ecv67guxSy6WDCX o+vA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=63j9CBaAry0Ep6MEDN3M6vAi2XdLmnBZ2NbTJuTei88=; b=NuefRWqErDqY+jnIfz8+cJs/pd9uGe45/A5AI+nNG1HUKQd3hSnehgPtrJpB9ZtyxY p++PRlBNq6emsMuxDvcH6hRiAOB198ltaml1PqzlDf4l9CLzQVGgn/UXMJXfxlML0lLn M9BSOd43Am9IJCmH5eHnN3/wj5EGYLAooGHNm8Ky82WbmkA2/IguvIo/9im3KSaEpeJZ +0NJyU1Tb9OO+p0roLDUyrjYLtDOREL/K9/T6fuqBPBkBVAuhkRE//eBZ7Nspg59ThL1 B9jOs1LR7lsdy6zbD4AL5arZxnNrwY/HOzHU3fg+o+u7D6zLJKfQJeFShTGG3WswOopK mTVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335zNz7J2Mj+MTBW24L5bGiPBCsioEeYKfn3tu1glXqdYN8m7RE 6SvLpHjyGr5VUEQCgMTwfP4ABMlH72LVZbKlxkg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHSRa9fYSz8TkeMJfVFOaJe93kh2JHiGt1Lm5OVIuPdQxparPi3YhpNPiKx0LaLQPYWv4EGg3Q6OO8ZCB+70k=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5043:: with SMTP id e3mr31635217ejk.260.1614181892526; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 07:51:32 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEz6PPRNjcZZ+m9ZHX7zCyD7VqueftpZCW_UuyBdozfmzSik-g@mail.gmail.com> <030801d4e3bb$26523be0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAEz6PPSih7=g4oZDWypP0+MX5T_h+8SPpdb98sg_RE9jfsw-GA@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR07MB5340C9405DC5569447F664EBA2C10@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAEz6PPQOzBU6UH1z6+DXe0Fk1=N0iURbuQeQVX_-E=2YRVXTVw@mail.gmail.com> <AM6PR07MB57849205CEF58D70636D989BA2FB0@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR07MB57849205CEF58D70636D989BA2FB0@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:51:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPRRar8e=wed0mVqUTjxQe+tE2dyOaMK7Ka0Df0jPc37Lw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004e935a05bc1702f2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/2eCI-H_7V2GpTYuwd4Nhks1ooyE>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model
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, 24 Feb 2021 15:51:37 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your further check on this. We have posted the updated version (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-07) to fix
the issues that you raised, along with some other updates.

Best regards,
- Xufeng

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 5:59 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: 20 November 2020 01:26
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> We have posted an updated version
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-06, to
> address the two additional items below.
>
> <tp>
>
> Indeed and here are some more:-(
>
> Both YANG module still import te-topology as an I-D not RFC
>
[Xufeng]: Updated.

>
> Your e-mail address in the YANG modules does not match that in the I-D
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

>
> ETSI references would benefit from a URL both in YANG and in I-D references
>
[Xufeng]: Added the URL in I-D references. I’m a little hesitant to add it
to YANG since other references in the “reference statement” do not do it,
and this reference has a very long URL that would be used multiple times.

>
> ETSI GS NFV has been updated three times since December 2014
>
[Xufeng]: Updated.

>
> Why the underscore in _3GPP.28.801?
>
[Xufeng]: A reference anchor tag in IETF cannot start with a numerical
number so 3GPP.28.801 would not work. The underscore is a trick that we
took from the draft-defoy.

>
> Why the underscore in Figure 2 etc in the ASCII version of the I-D?
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed them with the notes.

>
> draft-defoy expired three years ago; that is problematic for a Normative
> Reference
>
[Xufeng]: I think that it should be informative, and moved it as such.

>
> Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 7:08 AM <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailtomailto:
> ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailtomailto:
> xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
> Sent: 12 March 2020 21:57
>
> We have posted the updated version (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-05 ) to
> fix the issues that you raised.
> Thanks a lot,
>
> <tp>
> Xufeng,
>
> looks better and apologies for being slow to respond.
>
> C.12 IANA, C.13 Security look odd and contradict s.5, s.6.  Is there any
> reason for them to exist?
>
> Security s.6 does not conform to the boiler plate referenced in RFC8407.
> This asks that sensitive nodes be called out and I would think that at
> least the enable nodes for connectivity matrix and link terminations would
> qualify for that.
>
> [Xufeng]: Fixed. C.13 is now following RFC8407. s.5, s.6. were mistakenly
> merged from a different draft (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-use-cases-sf-aware-topo-model-00).
> These two sections have now been removed.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> - Xufeng
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 6:05 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailtomailto:
> ietfa@btconnect.com><mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>>>
> wrote:
> Xufeng
>
> Some quirks.
>
> Introduction/Abstract do not mention support or lack thereof  for NMDA
> (which the IESG have been calling for).
> [Xufeng]: Added.
>
> Introduction does not have a reference for YANG leaving the question of
> version number uncertain
> [Xufeng]: Added.
>
> Terminology fails to reference RFC8174
> [Xufeng]: Fixed
>
> Expand on first use, perhaps in Terminology, is helpful - TOSCA, SF2LTP,
> SF2SF, SF2TTP,
> [Xufeng]: Fixed
>
> CSO
> [Xufeng]: Authors and contributors discussed CSO and decided to remove it
> from this document and put it into a separate document.
>
> yang-version 1 is rather limiting
> [Xufeng]: Use 1.1 now.
>
> YANG import statements lack references (which YANG 1.1 allows)
>
> /       reference "TBD";/
>        reference "RFC XXXX - SF Aware TE Topology YANG Model"; /
> [Xufeng]: Fixed these statements.
>
>    module ietf-cso-dc
> no version
> no copyright
> no reference to the I-D
> no description clauses
> no reference clauses
> somewhat short of ready IMHO- I think that this needs a lot of work!
> [Xufeng]: As mentioned above, CSO is removed from this document and
> planned to be put into a separate document.
>
> IANA Considerations
>    RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
>    actual RFC number (and remove this note).
> I suggest that this apply throughout the I-D and that the Note is placed
> at the start, before the Introduction (the RFC Editor are happy with
> just the one note)
> [Xufeng]: Changed as suggeted.
>
> RFC6020 is a better reference for the IANA Considerations
> [Xufeng]: Right. Use  RFC6020 now.
>
>    [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]
> RFC8342
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
>
>    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]
> RFC8340
> [Xufeng]:  Fixed.
>
>    [I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo]
> RFC8345
> [Xufeng]: Fixed.
>
>      import ietf-actn-vn {
> does not appear in section 1.3
> [Xufeng]: Added.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Xufeng Liu" <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailtomailto:
> xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com><mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:
> xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>>
> To: "TEAS WG" <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org><mailto:teas@ietf.org
> <mailto:teas@ietf.org>>>
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 12:02 PM
> Subject: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-sf-aware-topo-model
>
>
> > Current Status:
> >
> >   *  The updated revision -03 was posted on Mar 11, 2019:
> >
> >      > Editorial fixes.
> >
> > Open Issues:
> >
> >   *   None.
> >
> > Next Steps:
> >
> >   *  Update the document to align with the latest versions of
> >      referenced documents, including draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo,
> >      RFC8340, RFC8342, RFC8345, and RFC8459.
> >   *  Update the section of Security Considerations according to latest
> >      guidelines.
> >   *  Get further reviews.
> >   *  YANG doctor's review.
> >   *  Working Group Last Call after completing above.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > - Xufeng
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org><mailto:Teas@ietf.org<mailto:
> Teas@ietf.org>>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
>
>