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

Xufeng Liu <> Sun, 24 June 2018 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDBF127598; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IjAQdqUQ1jYa; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FD271271FF; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 188-v6so7798889ita.5; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oTC8vMQuhDkW+MARhhpAPL4njumKB992GJ/7m9zA6y4=; b=ixId/uqGEQtA1Q0vxiRYRdYzNwpw0wywU6V/jC35zNk0B7aycuQUpT02/+3Go29CCz W5XLiK/kMV9x+3LF0oBSdBLmN+sbTjoeH8f6JIpZ6VxRpy1alRiLA4UWyy+i/aj5Y4IU FBtVm1C1I76fhqtNadmt1dqRcH/EiHzsYGrNosZNLziDPUFrdDwYJXclffCeIFfrAAd9 tp7FfR4ioCM+vxeBlwbbUrXx1fmNtq35+K+LXVG2sp1UnMHlakn0swEMA0Jm2xtF6it0 Q5byvbiyeaFbDAHw+/wk+ov0E4Q+kb5g/rO7kTG8MxSQU7KZHOaJNrV48NNoox2O6TLg CO5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oTC8vMQuhDkW+MARhhpAPL4njumKB992GJ/7m9zA6y4=; b=f/GrIIi76GnVLF76xKQuJ2imYpT+LKbGsbYzDtielU5dLPXAPbf8CVggVHIwMso8AU IjCknmV6GhyZtBpzGH7S7o6NLGPniJbxPZ9vO657DNTqAuFkmzgCY5i+6T8PEkI+T359 1VUVCh24Tu0uddj4JiZA8rKnORZtGYsTFoITAMp//HZ167B269BDLR23VWMW6BsV+38j F4/EJlrYrLCtOxNXe9rXfE/FK3AJT0SZ75ZIfSLQJuE6ipIDS3kzPIXQVipyvPDyh2ty MUJ+MwdjtBew5paCLLpCjirZ6X7TYzYR92DKWDKbDw1YCNADndqDLpv3D5AiWKOXBolp je3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E12SpFE4ExmHcmhnFBBpbOiE6lTMzANb9EJMw7y/MFS4gfyxgZr WVQ6mTkfqm7dEA7X+to0sQshH+AOuf5Q7xvVR7Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIU3mKpSd9CLhOb9VA5L392daUcz9EiKr+kyvNrfrDpvIPL30zREYzWUHYuMXawBxvV9f6wIVmqDurfVyjONzI=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:8509:: with SMTP id g9-v6mr6032715jai.54.1529807418417; Sat, 23 Jun 2018 19:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Xufeng Liu <>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 22:30:07 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Cc:,, Lou Berger <>, TEAS WG Chairs <>, TEAS WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bfe73e056f5a0b69"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 02:30:22 -0000

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
to describe the use cases, model usages, terminologies, and examples, in
greater details. Another draft,
<>*, also
discusses such a case.

- Xufeng

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:04 PM Spencer Dawkins <> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.