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

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

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
*https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling>*,
to describe the use cases, model usages, terminologies, and examples, in
greater details. Another draft,
*https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo>*, also
discusses such a case.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 4:04 PM Spencer Dawkins <
[e-mail]> 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.
>
>
>