[Teas] draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang and draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 10 September 2018 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01127130EAE; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6V5_FsCOrLQ9; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com []) (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 781AC130EAA; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 05:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com []) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w8AC2cm2016879; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:02:43 +0100
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5241D22042; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:02:43 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown []) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45F8F22040; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:02:43 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 950129200 (15.196.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w8AC2fTk005503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:02:42 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:02:41 +0100
Message-ID: <00f301d448fe$2da09a20$88e1ce60$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdRI/h7n/ejLRCkgRFuwg/aCzxlyOQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.349-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.349-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--14.348900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pjj54ow6YrbUQ+peT6MxXgXysW33GYMpkUtSee+57IGdwU/qXYxHvCA8 rnY0U1KzZ4oHG8WaiVt3aWU5jdY62OtVOyIWwVdS8eSmTJSmEv1R3sGN+j7mNPForZfqpDrmFEc adR8cJwZgpdTnHq8QYyP1QItMfK+4cl4EdHnAHX3njuQQVkVPTfR03Qe85siljNnoU1fopovFfu R2qWP/y4KOVBetbu2ickPW3b9Z0QhGJkKKzaebVsWUKBjERoYTZuNx7eknjx5lmPP/XnGELvea4 uH4Y9hvRCx6w3cVg7G+gPhGSQqXaTcpdZ3fQiLdOX/V8P8ail3InWAWA4yE6ZuTdmBzA9G/DMq3 z/Y/gtXfd+P6wwCt84RtqopBKUBlAY2LVwyJYvINHnk9Qxghom8GsEC21wb8rp/OBqB4RdzN46e gpx3HNw==
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/3r0rryQiXMklub3d8YgvOaPfTZQ>
Subject: [Teas] draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang and draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang
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, 10 Sep 2018 12:02:48 -0000


The chairs asked me to look at these two documents principally to see how they
relate to each other and to other existing YANG modules.

Initial reading showed that the WG draft was much more stable and developed than
the individual draft, but that was to be expected.

I did a detailed review of draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang and worked
with Young Lee (on behalf of the other authors) on this latest revision. I think
this brings a lot of clarity and shows the correct linkage between the various

I believe that draft-lee-... is now a good candidate for WG adoption and fits
well with the ACTN VN model.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 30 August 2018 20:56
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-10.txt
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>         Title           : Traffic Engineering and Service Mapping Yang Model
>         Authors         : Young Lee
>                           Dhruv Dhody
>                           Daniele Ceccarelli
>                           Jeff Tantsura
>                           Giuseppe Fioccola
>                           Qin Wu
> 	Filename        : draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-10.txt
> 	Pages           : 22
> 	Date            : 2018-08-30
> 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.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang/