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

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 13 July 2020 14:29 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 BC78B3A12E0 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:29:39 -0700 (PDT)
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 FDLi6Dsehe5w for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (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 321D03A12C9 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id e64so13649742iof.12 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:29:37 -0700 (PDT)
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=clIL8LwgRLprpQgCk+WipN/hmfhuCdjAV7DqPY8c2IU=; b=mJ/cdYfd2xh+fdT4NQp/DxhNnk3xvAnMqMol165hHpwf1TxehlnZJ0pFURXFC/I2qy 7X0qSrsvAPhyp1ERnLQD+p76RiIcTJrWRok7LyPqpX3Oo3mxPJJikpJClCZqIv/8o1BN LflJKUDMRgxIczsKz+ROiFUI2AFhTl1SqhVsdg3bCP+73r4nhgKP3nK/PerUIv74SfoI oG/EjqIcwQJKi6CLb2reCTjEfe/1qwtvA2EHFbfTAM0OB0UXwJMVxnHyNSZYi32gSdSN wsvxvDZuIR3ktO+4qfAqHbrQGlUcBETLajJ1VHg8MoChImBzJtOEe+13jqQCOY3QoAn1 YuQA==
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=clIL8LwgRLprpQgCk+WipN/hmfhuCdjAV7DqPY8c2IU=; b=i6+I2tg4AovDZ1bNJaKloXbQ/r+9OPGSdioptF5LB++YGRiCh/j2a324fxIn38y+zu OIFvaltLsvdI4UAocDEPuGzekGKXXE2Syx80RwI76oHkYQN1lhmQA88hXWZpYH/OqnyW b2Jd2QrxK3gwp9qa1IyOeAaltFoCHvgelJh2Y3wmWKtm5riSkPlXFLg/fGDPUqUMWtHB citPwqE0QfVlPvWtY2MzviUPmqiFuF6jUrY0UnNnq1b9rFqHQQvHl8a7UjLC3lRRgLRF QNIaKTKcCnnoWCmkDkl2aw1DwFh0J4/9T0bSoXZJ74HGCcKUS/cnMxEUHRkEfy0jWQNi dc3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PANmDMr5fGMlN0tBeN1rLZR9IGuCKxJZE+BzSiTfnv6uLIoFU tNrU2ekA6P1itXxbEI6H9OnYf7hWv/MkFTAlK/0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwnQwsUDWploWhX4pp+poNDfYESoVUdBDbOSmr09O5M4hg4YT7jDDlHBzkvjioFOpOso8BmVXawhsnJ8KBuc0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c801:: with SMTP id y1mr61322042iol.127.1594650576434; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEz6PPQC8NUnTimMVXBXzbd9+FxdeTDV8NXPuLDASBF=1YUR_A@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR07MB53406ABD74B3CEE15B5952BDA2AB0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAEz6PPS-ZWSb7cubv2jB05ZCb9kyyGXDPd5KpAQ05iHmtpMpCw@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR07MB5340DFF664791762E1F082F6A2A20@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB5340DFF664791762E1F082F6A2A20@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 10:29:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPT6N0a3FNtseRFzuXEAJoBvnBRBtwzg4vi+ZDLHxUZCrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000026375705aa5385f0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4ik5ucBqRaMjE5TDp3mPVFcW8uk>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
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, 13 Jul 2020 14:29:42 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for further reviewing. We have posted an updated version
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-08.
Some rewording has been made, with the hope of making the document more
comprehensible. Please let us know for anything that is still confusing
(for such an unconventional modeling approach).

Best regards,
- Xufeng

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:06 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

> From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: 07 May 2020 00:22
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks for reviewing and sorry about the errors. We have posted an updated
> version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-07,
> to fix the errors about the augmentation description and to rephrase a
> couple of sections to explain the relations between the related models and
> their objects. Please let us know for anything that is not clear enough.
>
> <tp>
> Thanks for the update.  I now find s.2 s.2.1 clear but still struggle
> thereafter.  When you use layer 3 topology I find it ambiguous.  Is it
> layer 3 unicast topology or layer 3 te topology?  Thus in s.2.2.1
> "When TE is enabled on a layer 3 topology .. " implies unicast
> "congruent to the layer 3 topology .."
> implies unicast
> " the layer 3 topology will have a reference.."
>  ah, no, must be layer 3 te topology
> and this is the case throughout the rest of s.2.  I would like to see
> those references to layer 3 topology clarified, unicast or te.  You may
> want to say that layer 3 topology means ... while layer 3 ... topology will
> be spelt out in full or some such, I am easy, but do think that you need to
> use two distinct terms.
>
[Xufeng]: Reworded. Please let us know if anything is confusing.

>
> As you may infer, I like to work top down, start with Abstract, then
> Introduction, then s.2 s.3 making sense of them before seeing if the module
> does what these sections say, so when I get stuck in s.2, I do not make it
> to details of the YANG module.
>
[Xufeng]: Thank you much for looking at it. We are striving to get your
review unstuck.

>
> Tom Petch
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:56 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailtomailto:
> ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> on
> behalf of Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailtomailto:
> xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
> Sent: 21 April 2020 21:09
>
>
> Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
>
> Current Status:
>
>   *  The updated revision -06 was posted on March 8, 2020:
>      - Editorial changes.
>   *  Corordinated with ietf-eth-te-topology and ietf-te-mpls-tp-topo
>      for the augmentation of ietf-te-topology
>      - ietf-te-topology does not need to be changed.
>   *  Answered YANG doctor's review comments.
>
> Open Issues:
>
>   *   None.
>
> <tp>
>
> I started  to review this and have given up,  I cannot make sense of
> section 2, which I see as fundamental to understanding the I-D.
>  Thus
> The YANG modulues  ietf-l3-te-topology ...
> These two modules augment ietf-l3-te topology
> No they don't!  This augments
> ietf-l3-unicast-topology
> which is quite different and I find this confusion elsewhere in section
> two. Thus
> Relationship  between Layer 3 Topology and TE Topology
> Is that Layer 3 TE Topology or ietf-network-topology?  I think that many
> if not most  references to TE Topology are ambiguous and need clarifying -
> is the reference to Layer 3 TE Topology to  ietf-network-topology?
>
> Some of the words are quirky and this website is determined not to let me
> put them into an e-mail but here goes.
>
> modulues
> topoology
> moducment
> Local ink
>
> Tom Petch
> Next Steps:
>
>
>   *  Update the model to sync with the referenced models like
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types if there are any changes.
>   *  Welcome further reviews and suggestions.
>   *  Working Group Last Call after completing the above.
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>