[Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-21: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 12 June 2019 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A931201A3; Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:35:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, teas-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.97.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <156030332758.5903.11787427451647585397.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:35:27 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/6DikSFHdDgH2juio5prI2BSjJFs>
Subject: [Teas] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-21: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 01:35:35 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-21: 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:


(1) Section 4.2.  Per “The data model proposed in this document can be used to
retrieve/represent/manipulate the customized TE Topology depicted in Figure 8b”
this statement struck me as odd because aren’t all of the topologies depicted
here supported with the modeling language?

(2) Section 4.2.  Per “Although an authorized client MAY receive a TE topology
with the client ID field   matching some other client”, why would this happen? 
Couldn’t this potentially leak customized TE information across clients?

(3) Section 5.9.  Per “When two or more templates specify values for the same
configuration field, the value from the template with the highest priority is
used”, is the highest priority 0 or 65535 (since priority is a uint16)?  The
text doesn’t indicate whether the highest priority is a largest or smallest

(4) Editorial Nits
-- Section 3.4.  Missing word.  s/3.3/Section 3.3/

-- Section 4.2.  Typo.  s/-connectivit-/-connectivity-/

-- Section 4.2.  Editorial.  Why does “single-abstract-node-with-connectivit
–matrix topology” use hyphens and
“border_nodes_connected_via_mesh_of_abstract_links topology” use an underscore?

-- Section 4.2.  Typo.  s/Although a/Although an/

-- Section 5.6.  Typo.  s/cooresponding/corresponding/