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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>
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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: giovedì 19 novembre 2020 13:12
> To: [e-mail]
> 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: <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> 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/
> >
>