Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 24 February 2021 17:00 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEz6PPTKK-MFUyUAKBW1+2sBry2=ov9TXHCF8mL6hZ_1fXCo+g@mail.gmail.com> <AM6PR07MB5784CE62D84CBAF454870097A2FB0@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR07MB5784CE62D84CBAF454870097A2FB0@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:59:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPQPiGGsfEwMJ8OJhfzup1p6K7zjkB7UUKRes92W7ww6YA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000884a905bc17f7cf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4gLCEezJofoLxiuKJTokPZiLZyY>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
Precedence: list

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your further review. We have posted updated
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-10, trying to
address the new comments.

Best,
- Xufeng

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 7:37 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Xufeng Liu <
> xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: 13 November 2020 01:06
>
> Current Status:
>
>   *  Received further valuable comments from Tom Petch.
>   *  Plan to post an updated version next week to address some review
> comments from Tom.
>
> <tp>
>
> Thanks for that; clearer but I will take a while to get my mind around it.
>
> On prefix, I think that l3tet is absolutely right (there are those who
> think that anything remotely te should  be texyz - not me)
> I would take it one stage further and use l3-tet for topology type since
> it is a l3 te topology!
>
[Xufeng]: While the discussions are still on-going on the other threads,
I’ll wait a bit longer for that result.

>
> The references to te-topo and te-types need updating to the RFC - I do not
> know if there are technical changes, those I-D did so many somersaults that
> I lost track.
>
[Xufeng]: Updated.

>
> Your e-mail addresses in this I-D do match!
>
> Since the IETF has abolished pagination, a bugbear of mine, then it
> behoves us to try and keep sections short.  I wonder if s.4.2 would be
> better split so that each augment is a separate section with perhaps a line
> or two of text saying e.g.
> This augments the te link attributes with statistics and configuration
> when the network type is packet
> I do not think that that subtracts from legibility and does ease
> references thereto
>
[Xufeng]: Did some kind of splits.

>
> Appendix B is more of a challenge to divide into sections!
>
[Xufeng]: Don’t know how to achieve it yet, leaving it as it for now.

>
> Tom Petch
>
> Open Issues:
>
>   *  Authors working on addressing Tom’s comments.
>
> Next Steps:
>
>   *  Follow-up with Tom and resolve comments.
>   *  Welcome further reviews and suggestions.
>   *  Keep coordinating with ietf-eth-te-topology and ietf-te-mpls-tp-topo
> to ensure aligned model relations.
>   *  Working Group Last Call after completing the above.
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
>

[Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-t… Xufeng Liu
Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-… tom petch
Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-… Xufeng Liu