Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-11.txt

tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> Tue, 30 March 2021 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfa@btconnect.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 98AFA3A08A7; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.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 O6U6rBuM0JNX; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR02-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr10105.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.1.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB5B3A0883; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 03:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=j8G7BcKAeZ6cJdSJqqhaAN3cULXhuSE5rLaCpjcSA8ICy3R1W7AR7xqERNM2xs77dL7DpxWcfhcFzrQczXh/zfzN8uSURao2Sa2SBwg3iL6UM3+cpM2vhyCkbzg/9rHSjXdzO3nGrEHbdMSiyL4523rQ0hqKlB8xWEoWDKqNueDjX849E97MvF7uqaQwJCHLEvVOmdPVRB71B6k1IRNOIq2ESmslFe2Pds1Al5qDec9hMkJK1G8LTbxWbp4+IsmAB0t+GPvepFzsNdtrVCwH2vl1xfwULhLDIY2m/wbg8/brQtBHV24KtEU7NqrQ/f02yZIqJkEvsnhEnWCpZvvZhg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=uclZ09AxyOIrjbG6wblyIEfskR/R56y4OlFQkyjspAo=; b=aUdSFzGyQNz9V4mp7/FJoWIxDxAs73DHeFwjLmyi6JwQJFpAJbhGCpIOmHx4IVty4JkP518D23WF0Y0VkZFyd3LFiVvsKVXhGwQu/2jn3hi2XXxGtTyO4qSAMhU4EfuWEGa+LQGmCKNc3G29htopo7vB09PvR6+VDTE2Hy2VldrI55nNL2UEuDpf73hpsLynQzPiCSsLVEqWfeonOaJ2VToVTumfD7MCTARzCR1lKMojt8NLJUco9PyFOJ2QMqd+JEDhysnrnudxkw+uhSO+TALmB3QJ+jWTAGlbGkatyGtIdjujyjkXdSAJ4hKgJQhuEfNi9Ond904cnNnASsKTVA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=uclZ09AxyOIrjbG6wblyIEfskR/R56y4OlFQkyjspAo=; b=ZWbW3Gn2FyjK+jYSWbX6vMY3KNuFsVRm4/1Ije5xvEoMRfld/p8b0+/Idnt7v0Gjhd9goudZoKw0805HUreSJ0erg8zCDtTDMpxw0stwQBvcmmYf2n+xcFumQtBfERP6wpx8NlISobZ7zd5vGTgIVTBw5u+jCcRsCs/uy+JBS0M=
Received: from DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:73::23) by DU2PR07MB8048.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:23b::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3999.16; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:49:52 +0000
Received: from DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5d9:cd75:1ebc:a236]) by DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5d9:cd75:1ebc:a236%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3999.025; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:49:52 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-11.txt
Thread-Index: AQHWvmyF/zkf+A1nGkG07xzyKeNaTqnPXMRhgH+auQCATigYqA==
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:49:52 +0000
Message-ID: <DB7PR07MB55466EE1B8B82ED049042679A27D9@DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <5FB65FE8.1030409@btconnect.com> <AM6PR07MB578489FBDC931A7E8AF60326A2E00@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <7a3ee5b71cd341859503925c35c631a6@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7a3ee5b71cd341859503925c35c631a6@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: huawei.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;huawei.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=btconnect.com;
x-originating-ip: [86.146.121.140]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b55d657e-24cf-416b-c9a9-08d8f3698c5d
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DU2PR07MB8048:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DU2PR07MB8048D21645DCD14C3C3B8055A27D9@DU2PR07MB8048.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7691;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(366004)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(376002)(478600001)(86362001)(6506007)(71200400001)(110136005)(52536014)(66476007)(66446008)(66556008)(64756008)(33656002)(66946007)(5660300002)(91956017)(76116006)(316002)(53546011)(8936002)(966005)(83380400001)(38100700001)(7696005)(8676002)(9686003)(4326008)(26005)(2906002)(4001150100001)(66574015)(55016002)(186003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?iso-8859-1?Q?ynAOqS92qVC4vY0JqQQrMNklXcBq4wZvOS+HJfhuKcEDVZVKa0ciagkLEI?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?MKdXdOrIVjv+tVZPgfbUcTmVOTex3A2ndwHIOEsYUE1yeKYVhGUJTvQ6+2?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?rXkZ1Lybz43Rti+vOhxI8KH4BOHmtdoN03F5KvcN6g0LjJJPPT9416xZpE?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?7vEZ0gNfW70nEzg6rHulckybHeSsvS9xouFSqpUA1dxEdtwNz/hv6HXQ4S?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?bH/jtyPkNu8oXdbPtTX6lpu1yLTwhUrmeBPz5DAGEPUm9cB13DltbQzICy?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?uUivUkUNaQgnZ4HM/mGumvJwpnqs1TYss2MIGm/Vdt8FflN3R0IXut0BTU?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?WnZnAJhO0z5MmBDnLdb7mxOU/ZPvK+NiwJcleejOssZth+jv57E/PaHrWb?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?MZXLRK230CMf3mgqcVZZnqqCoVixjvt2Ow8/iAL4rhXcwFzVrFeWrGi3uw?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?edHGTC2rJSbfaK1ywCKPr0d8QPGyJBjXQ/sAhicPM7dOESZ0ymciv2OeiB?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?s9R6YWoGzxINJhRIoWXyWYB4/NCAvE6PFnl6a55T3QjGUjkm0mzmCObw+C?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?uMvmjyK0arcfWgJVMkXnAhyZBAVEwviT7gyuA7qe3xqC4qVuAGEgaekQzZ?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?vLARMwiy0I1z/EBrQIKnVxcB+JP9mPIGfoBrLb2wsnzA5OEEd+AqCznx32?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?8fthYZAxkd14q6xEWxEnJZbJSyPDpgLrZdQ0Yv9AyV9DedqdxwHhicFgqe?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?0O7zuEjfqUCqEEm+G/hDSmfh/CVvsIJMejRUMCmGHeZEO/YXi99qeBnc/6?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?+3uzW6aqXXwFO8Vjs5lfFDeVR9eBBgy0vE+Aq4OhHGip1eVpui0d36m3A/?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?hqPdP2XNelwZrIIXO/qO96IUW6h0mljnb3GF6x0GQ0RtNjKklnvo7l0ub4?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?sP27deAwBIUh3t25oJY8p28J9yUvnueVWJbSUk58WFm2vh7KXjO3eueRV3?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?y9RC4ZIuBxP8bMWpdCk1Osq/B7XXQazC/rxAsGadUN+/i5my9VztlVkOHY?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?KhZdMoIu4fho6ddUCYNHND70Lrn20Z5FPjXfjSNUhRl9yaiSsW9PhCEE6u?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?a95uvq2SkpfNUCZ9vqb0ExQU9zzhSSov6eDIXwyfe07AIkFZo+isFh6AfN?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?c25LMlzp2NOd1jePG8l7jjcHXPuv12eUoNmV9w4gfHFpWTOeBPtBCSw6YP?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?hMZ3T01+oK7aHcKJxQOI48Iium3i8AlVjsHeYks5RUzWdFeOuAJfV9gxFp?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?HVumj8w5IzJL+t7WwwYlXFm6JbPpQOLvkx7Fp5nT5cQgDjQ=3D?=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b55d657e-24cf-416b-c9a9-08d8f3698c5d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Mar 2021 10:49:52.4257 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: uesDGNKMgTCZFqbrQqYyxdvhBxNlrVmh+7dmrz6ayBf8N8q25ouTfRfPe1FSdzZ56oWn4IUSLmhPCTJPRhKx0A==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DU2PR07MB8048
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/9gYSG97P4HkAaRBbPi1pyjnl3ew>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-11.txt
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: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:50:04 -0000

From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
Sent: 08 February 2021 16:48

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your review and comments

We have addressed them in the -12 version we have just submitted

Please find some feedbacks and follow-up questions in line marked with "Authors > "

<tp>

Looks good (mostly:-).  I like the capitalisation.  Bringing my comments up to the top lest they get lost. Mostly editorial but

te-types has a type for tp-id; why not use it? or explain why it is not suitable


I still see one inconsistency of YYYY and XXXX both of which get used for teas-yang-te; I think YYYY better since XXXX is usually used for 'this' I-D.

Expansions needed for OSNR BER (which defaults to Basic Encoding Rules), FEC, WDM, e2e(probably)

s.1
/allows providing the TED/allows the provisioning of the TED/

s.3.2
/may be not sufficient/may be insufficient/

s.3.2.1
/by its own /on its own /

s.3.3..3
/ it is know/ it is known/

s.3.3
/does not guaranteed /does not guarantee /

s.6.2
"RFC XXXX: Yang model for requesting Path Computation";

RFC XXXX: YANG Data Model for requesting Path Computation
to match the title of the I-D

/as described in section 3.3.1.";/
as described in section 3.3.1 of RFC XXXX.";/

/  "Information for synchonized path computation /
 "Information for synchronized path computation /

     augment "/te:tunnels-actions/te:output" {
       description
         "Augment Tunnels Action RPC input ...
/input/output/?

s.8 I think that the analysis by leaf is needed before Last Call.

on k-shortest, no I have no better idea.  Probably just ignorance on my part.  See what the AD or IESG come up with - it is the sort of technical reference where they excel.

Tom Petch

Thanks

Sergio and Italo (on behalf of co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com]
> Sent: giovedì 19 novembre 2020 13:12
> To: teas@ietf.org
> Subject: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-
> 11.txt
>
>
> Some mostly editorial comments
>
> Capitalisation; confuses me
> I would use a general principle that capitals are used for technical terms,
> something special, and not elsewhere.  Thus I prefer Optical Domain Controller,
> Cloud Network Orchestrator, YANG(!) but domain, optical domain, child,
> parent, coordinator, packet, optical, multi-domain but above all, consistency
> in the use
>

Authors> Ok

We have used the following conventions:

- Software-Defined Networking
- YANG data model
- YANG module
- tree diagram
- TE tunnel
- TE topology
- Packet/Optical Integration
- Packet/Optical Coordinator
- optical network
- optical domain
- Optical Domain Controller
- packet network
- packet domain
- Packet Domain Controller
- multi-domain
- Multi-Domain Controller
- TE domain
- TE Domain Controller
- TE network
- TE Network Controller
- Data Center
- Data Center Interconnection
- orchestrator
- Cloud Network Orchestrator
- use case
- parent PCE
- child PCE

Please check if anything has been missed in the -12 version

> Expand on first use
> SDN, ABNO, ACTN, CMI, MPI, OTN, ODU, PCE, WSON, LSP,  PNC, SVEC, SRLG
>

Authors> Ok: please check if anything has been missed in the -12 version

> XXXX  is standing in for two distinct I-D; the common convention is to use XXXX
> for this document, rather than 'this document' and then YYYY, ZZZZ etc for
> others - here, I would use YYYY for teas-te.
>

Authors> Ok

> k-shortest could do with a reference
>

Authors> We have looked for some references and found many papers which mainly described different algorithms that could be used for computing k-shorted paths as if the term is well-known.

Within IETF, we have found https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2386 which also references:

    [T88] D. M. Topkis, "A k-Shortest-Path Algorithm for Adaptive
    Routing in Communications Networks", IEEE Trans.
    Communications, pp. 855-859, July, 1988.

We are not really sure that this IEEE paper or RFC2386 would be a good reference for the definition.

Any opinion?

> /data-store/datastore/
>

Authors> Ok

> /multi domain/multi-domain/
>

Authors> Ok

> /setup/set up/ when this is a verb, set-up is the noun
>

Authors> Ok

> I think that  there is only the one path delete RPC but I see several different
> phrases that seem to refer to it - consistency is good (and capitalisation is
> good!)
>

Authors> Ok: we will use the term Path Delete RPC in -12 version

> Abstract
>
> YANG-based protocols
> I know of none such:-)  perhaps YANG-supporting or some such
>

Authors> The term "YANG-based protocols" is used in section 1.1 of RFC7950.

> s.1
> YANG, NETCONF, RESTCONF need references  and I would mention at this
> point that this is RPC-based
>

Authors> This is stated some paragraph below when describing the content of the draft:

   This document defines a YANG data model [RFC7950] for an RPC to
   request path computation, which complements the solution defined in
   [TE-TUNNEL], to configure a TE tunnel path in "compute-only" mode.

> s.2.1
> /depend from/depend on/

Authors> Ok: for consistency, done also in s.2.2

> /even this is/ even if this is/
>

Authors> Ok

> s.2.4
> /path computation to/path computation from/
>

Authors> Ok: for consistency, done also in s.3.2 and s.3.2.2

> s.3.2
> /computation by its own/computation on its own/ /to compute unfeasible
> path/to compute an unfeasible path/ /and accurate the TE//and accurate TE/
>

Authors> Ok

> s.3.2.2
> /is not good and need/is not good and it needs/

Authors> Ok

> /to get a suboptimal path that/     unsure perhaps /that/than/?

Authors> Proposed to rephrase as:

                                                                                                                there are
  more chances not to find a path or to get a suboptimal path than
  performing multiple per-domain path computations and then stitch
  them.

>
> s.3.3
> /major issues in case the time /major issues when the time /
>

Authors> Ok

> compute-only mode in the config data-store which datastore?  elsewhere you
> name the datastore
>

Authors> Ok: c/config data-store/running datastore/

> /can request to setup /can request the set-up of/ /computation requests
> /computation request/ /path that have been /path that has been /
>

Authors> Ok

> s.4
>   /not-synchronized /unsynchronized
>

Authors> Ok

> s.5.1
> /The YANG model permits to synchronize/The YANG model permits the
> synchronization of/
>

Authors> Ok

> including raw YANG seems odd - might be better in English with a line or two
> of explanation for each identity - I see this approach in yang-te-types
>

Authors> Ok

> s.5.2
> /It also allows to request in the input/It also allows the request in the input/
>

Authors> Not sure the change would be consistent with the intended meaning. What about rephrasing the text as:

   It also allows the client to request which information (metrics,
   srlg and/or affinities) should be returned:

> s.5.3
> 'is indented to be used'
> perhaps 'intended'- this occurs in several places
>

Authors> Ok

> / primary paths, or/ primary path, or/
>

Authors> Ok

> Since the IETF has expunged pagination, then it would be good to keep
> sections to a page or less, where this is technically feasible -  I know, diagrams
> make this difficult!.

Authors> It is a pity that pagination has been expunged. However, given the technical content of the draft and the diagrams, we think it is quite difficult to shorten the exiting sections.

>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> Cc: <teas@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 2:58 PM
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-11.txt
>
>
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
> Signaling WG of the IETF.
> >
> >         Title           : Yang model for requesting Path Computation
> >         Authors         : Italo Busi
> >                           Sergio Belotti
> >                           Victor Lopez
> >                           Anurag Sharma
> >                           Yan Shi
> >         Filename        : draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-11.txt
> >         Pages           : 93
> >         Date            : 2020-11-16
> >
> > Abstract:
> >    There are scenarios, typically in a hierarchical SDN context, where
> >    the topology information provided by a TE network provider may not
> >    be sufficient for its client to perform end-to-end path
> computation.
> >    In these cases the client would need to request the provider to
> >    calculate some (partial) feasible paths.
> >
> >    This document defines a YANG data model for an RPC to request path
> >    computation. This model complements the solution, defined in
> >    RFCXXXX, to configure a TE Tunnel path in "compute-only" mode.
> >
> >    [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of
> >    draft-ietf-teas-yang-te once it has been published.
> >
> >    Moreover this document describes some use cases where a path
> >    computation request, via YANG-based protocols (e.g., NETCONF or
> >    RESTCONF), can be needed.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation/
> >
>