Re: [Teas] Yang Grouping for Geo-location

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <> Sat, 31 July 2021 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149DD3A1853 for <>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ZyTtw7dN0hmQ for <>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7168C3A1855 for <>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j18so8042957ile.8 for <>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:01:57 -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=kogeW0D0leR33bKcAeGZlNlbjYOjKok10siJ4OxYb4k=; b=koqAXQJ1iIAf8Qex3FjkOO9JVPnf4SrkM7SQT9muAvS5daHDhTpX67DldR5P1eRGDr fKvbMxN8We6Ql2aoCaMtB4NPrwT5l0LLpd3cyeH90UrYORc6l80K4xOBDrAiz37/OqI9 s3fRDngKcdfzdh9/WqDcbTjRGLs0cCJ2aRt+x0mKb5EkKFutqwDSAYHzFuJu+eT5Edeu 3KziY3qEPOhUOQ1CPVWjNm/hAwmuWcEk5YkT5bH79rqeK1N4YSreiw+z0+nt5h6rdXwT GNfa9M2+eUNXCjWdCflLO80RlvdZTJV9bOQl3lHVguo4obFQ2zH07FeQaFyAzMw7k5aH VKoQ==
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=kogeW0D0leR33bKcAeGZlNlbjYOjKok10siJ4OxYb4k=; b=ZcBQLnJROhK0f9tDCWHBDN2pv72NfqEI5XkmG/L4CBUTiVXqoP0RffEdHtESrXdyE7 F1PLJCCYt6AEDYZcXFe/SrmL/vz9V11mLm0+K+mHxbtLobb3yk+y/4OJmH075d1fSyJv c+sjMGSDb6GIQBkAHEhdicN+W5FASZCEMwn/S5N8g04VJima+P+ZueUQJW3M1quUoZso pIAd2yDjj1AkCUd5o8T6nPOPstkFaDcsW+CUbwOZ915oYyK5QyxftLlGwBoXxO9Bn14d wreUcpVwP7iGAd+DQk7qN6+y4et0uUYUp0qMO7ubfW7fbt7tu4jkkVM2gL6OFXHFktt3 99Yw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ZMMEkM+ohVWtlJtzMG5ZuLxlA0xD8bbUWzSthcLqwIEXmOzd3 A231Va1l0oPuiyYX8J7prBDNqn7AzFMCZ9FhL1w=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUNPeGDVpeEMeSoh2YwotxSCRgQuihL+hMc1TCltf432IlrHQbdhwMemcJWxdQssToTQryav6YNCRb/zEgeVI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1b88:: with SMTP id h8mr3553325ili.48.1627689715585; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <710_1627659142_61041B86_710_234_1_dac58e1b-7a84-4c56-825a-93f917f3574d@OPEXCAUBMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <710_1627659142_61041B86_710_234_1_dac58e1b-7a84-4c56-825a-93f917f3574d@OPEXCAUBMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 19:01:44 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Julien Meuric <>
Cc: TEAS WG <>, "LE ROUZIC Esther TGI/OLN" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004d590d05c8600bad"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Yang Grouping for Geo-location
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 00:02:02 -0000

Julien, Hi!

As long as the topology specific geo-location requirements can be catered
to by just specifying the ellipsoid co-ordinates (latitude, longtime,
altitude) in the default frame of reference (natural universe/earth),
the geolocation-container from RFC8795 should be more than sufficient.

I would let the authors of the specific augmenting model to make the choice.

-Pavan (as a WG participant and a co-author of RFC8795)

On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 10:32 AM <> wrote:

> Hi TEASers,
> In CCAMP, we work on draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang
> and we've been relying so far on the geolocation-container from RFC
> 8795. Now that draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location is with the IESG, how does
> the WG expect the augmentations to the TE topology to move on about
> geo-location?
> - Stick with the container from RFC 8795?
> - Let each author set or WG choose?
> - Deprecate the grouping from RFC 8795?
> - Some other plan?
> Thanks for you thoughts,
> Julien, on behalf of the contributors to
> draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list