Re: [Teas] Fw: Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo -09

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 23 July 2021 23:04 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 951263A2099 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.854 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, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NUMERIC_HTTP_ADDR=1.242, 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 FmX4ksDpOI8f for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:04:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62a.google.com (mail-ej1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62a]) (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 E125E3A2094 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id gt31so5763478ejc.12 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:03:59 -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=UoHjp/t71nMDWO+xIUFn3TYg2cEpdcDOP889z9hLpbA=; b=SiFHGriZrgu7IjfKnbdGN1DNYnkta8HwyFkeMDKn8Q4QcIsDBTzBMp6/LYC55JPeIL vumiE0AoTLWrLjLPHNMTBv5VvWl+A2ZoTutQgPWTczG9zMo8TXC3GlSsrKbq1MEUo5Zc zn+HArENsUSOcy3hkUfy4aF18lLnSzrYayu45FPF2T8O1loGfeA9L7IBuKyranJh0L34 0dnMjzsDqzMyOYxpZuSMIMocAZeWDo8CgTt1jRkTdeMUmf7Px5ZfJ9D4M/VXTvhpJzs7 bYBtDcEzTSTe6Q3hxru/gh7j7AZZ25dsL+YbqDk3UaEHO10iPBtJNlscZ8wMTVCdCHib Z1LA==
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=UoHjp/t71nMDWO+xIUFn3TYg2cEpdcDOP889z9hLpbA=; b=TWJvfPN5MujuzDBOjm2PjrH/CQwIGSyJk7n9O+w5aDiI5WX3u3HDJ1BxMsbax//m8T 1YDWnmTqgtQ9Qmt5z1+bbZRpwWDq7vO286kV/r9bUbzkvJJg7dAAz8s0zC06af5oMfvK zQ914wIRpv8uNGO+JG5E6XIWtrLBlCYs2U47znlyTP6aJ1osvnjY/4wKF5iIzYnvuAcL h4Y3019EkWn2KVO/ssSTgXPUKHDpl4it7M+J3JoejoyXJwF85dX65eTLrTwWVC50XovE goVVshvFL3DQgE2maQIOMSufMi4m/WMWAA1Pj1IjdHK/T4xrhYH2nX6JRDlNJJKJI5d2 68vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533lFerR5nAnGMozHqZLoIet3DBGxQmi3Ead6ovyfZzWyHRLZ+VW ijz80s+omOfFb5yJ1dXXJ9XN96c0hEh96L2edrE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJziDI5+lfThnmh1u27411w/FwRggdCWMsUdwhPIv4FHv5Apy2SroRaDIGNt4sugLr5+E4SgkAQgUqg9l9ADJqc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:76da:: with SMTP id kf26mr6666431ejc.511.1627081436759; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEz6PPTitjtVBngGEBTi3O3cwEsfwxaQw_wnq+afdDFc=8tFaw@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR07MB5786A1A81AFA1EF6572B0F49A2E60@DB7PR07MB5786.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAEz6PPTXMxJQ03ZHwn7xupF_kUwY6ks7Ts5cTMHoYf5domKifA@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR07MB55463121B7C3B7B35AE00CE8A27E9@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <6061A67B.9080501@btconnect.com>
In-Reply-To: <6061A67B.9080501@btconnect.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:03:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPQ7sBhw-x_gyrKLtuqwHjoMK_bXnTx=vxDZf3x=Lk2mxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f0c8405c7d26bb2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/9C1dOjeWBi7WEkZahQwIetZeFLs>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Fw: Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo -09
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: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 23:04:06 -0000

Hi Tom,

We have posted an updated
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo-10,
to address these issues.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 6:05 AM t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

> On 29/03/2021 10:37, tom petch wrote:
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Sent: 24 February 2021 17:07
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thank you much for the additional comments. We have posted an updated
> version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo-09.
> Section 2.2 has been reworded. I'm wondering if it is any better.
>
> Xufeng,
>
> Yes, I am getting there but it remains a tough read.  I think that the
> problem is partly that the work of TEAS lacks an overall structure and
> that, with hindsight, the organisation could be more rational but that
> is the way that the IETF works and is not going to change; and this
> brings together many different technologies, some of which I am
> comfortable with, others not.  It makes references to other documents
> more necessary for me.
>
[Xufeng]: We’d try to make them complete. Please let us know whenever any
one is missing.

>
> So,
> 1.3 Prefixes
> you need to add tet which you (rightly) use in the I-D.
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

>
> 2.2
> /  <other netowrk / <other network/
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

>
> OLD
> Each type of topologies is indicated by
> "network-types" defined in
>     [RFC8345].
>
> NEW
> Each type of topology is indicated by
> a YANG presence container which augments
> "network-types" as defined in
>     [RFC8345].
>
[Xufeng]: Changed as suggested. More accurate and clearer.

>
>
> The five following references ae inconsistent in their use of YANG
> prefix.  I suggest including all the prefix in the path statements.
>
> The five references need references, all of them!  The I-D for packet is
> not obvious to me.
>
[Xufeng]: Completed them and fixed some of them.

>
> 2.5
>     by augmenting the container "l3-topology-attributes" in the L3
> toplogy model.
> needs a reference to the I-D IMHO.  I would like to see references in
> the subsequent sections as well, for those who are dipping into a
> section and not reading this cover-to-cover.
>
[Xufeng]: Added.

>
> 2.6
> Wrong!  This is not the YANG module of -09!
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

>
> 2.7
> Wrong! This is not the YANG module of -09!
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.


>
> 3
> The use of multiple presence containers stands out to me as odd.  I
> think that the reason for it (assuming there is one!) needs explaining.
>
[Xufeng]: Added explanations in Sec 2.4., 2.6, and 2.7, where these
presence containers first appear.

>
> 4
>    description "Augment only for SR topology.";
> May make sense now but may not in future. Perhaps
>    description "Augment only for SR MPLS topology.";
> to cater for IPv6 which must be on the way. This applies to all the YANG
> 'when'.
>
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

>
> Appendix B
>                   "router-id": ["203.0.113.3"],
>                   "prefix": [
>                     {
>                       "prefix": "203.0.113.1/32",
> Should that be 113.1?
>
[Xufeng]: Thanks for catching this. Should be 113.3. Fixed.

>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
> > Best regards,
> > - Xufeng
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 7:34 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: 13 November 2020 01:04
> >
> > Current Status:
> >
> >    *  Received further valuable comments from Tom Petch.
> >    *  The updated revision -08 was posted on Nov 1, 2020:
> >       - Addressed some review comments from Tom
> >       - Updated the reference to the latested draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang
> >
> > Open Issues:
> >
> >    *  Authors working on addressing Tom’s comments.
> >
> >
>