IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] "Addresses" in examples in draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 24 October 2022 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.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 785C9C1522D4; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EQiiogrN2eiL; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E84CAC1522D2; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id h9so5949670wrt.0; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1thZZJXOxBQrTuVaOj57kYazRCQw+PkUmQowEWT54Rs=; b=oEruOIM20yMbdOTZZ6pP89BWpaMo+Nj0X1/hDyIeKUUEUaZAoqs2m1FMGBZxo+/t7D aogB5HoO9Xfb6Bk+BsVcFrTDJnMMF97OAY3Ouoo2JluiR15Y48cZ539v8y/SdsYOSZfJ 4P3/RH1BflDSc9IHHRKM2N1APBQil/LTYn3bZiZqYOEf2hm8JTm9g1oruWI5inXjFZYA YfFEOk26J0fycvSHwQAqEyI1U1ohqYuO1ln+mrtqEQo9MP2Sn7f5s9TiQ5MeFMC6Rli1 PiQRguWZvqCkFhuG56t+712p5TaoESSLKsmNBz3zmJq40nOcUD3jx6GAouBVWc2s/rxD RgxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=1thZZJXOxBQrTuVaOj57kYazRCQw+PkUmQowEWT54Rs=; b=hkm/AhD3+UHwRwL8o3CWfM5oZxpAzFvbi9rJT1KpJkWkyHOhiRGfZrKaRRoUfCGlFI gGTR5kxXMa3JHSK2UQdeXPNH+TAqL4k5we2GXMR+R/94l1T8SYIkwEoEVB/IUd3GPjL0 y8RwMkWB94wpNTvWUqUmfQZbWHIUoF4PIcGukZT6nF8bx/92cEOgb6w2ZjbUwOjS4piu oy09ec/3EwuAWYc0s4ic2H7vbYFPq4rFd0MfR2SCuvlcwOXVBAep8PTYQRK8UqwBhMoE BhsYrV0sQtzxRIYocBNTRqrV+ygtXdV61UdtxPPia7ExvAeDR659QZO3YARSA6rLTPNw Qpog==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1soxA/R9Sgq0KkDjOtX/Ui48AF7C1yjZInWOL4I/HnTUK9IC7A JCPtIHYuvA15GY9nWt37LTskl35b3eBbkhXN8G5EtzJAuvE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7Y0Ri8IVWa5uRY1Q1yFSOJ7JCHNlEuBAt6RpzTd3a5vd4cezjLwISrVLr6BNjH1QTXHvC4yINk8ni1b7Iv0Wk=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f743:0:b0:236:7309:1209 with SMTP id z3-20020adff743000000b0023673091209mr3279317wrp.14.1666628080566; Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <10f201d8a8cd$242f47b0$6c8dd710$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <10f201d8a8cd$242f47b0$6c8dd710$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 21:44:03 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn4NFQpPM+o2hUE-w1ECPLtdOk=o7zGQ_f-UZ1_bVwu6Zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b7067105ebca1628"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/AVDT_S_GA1a4Orbmo75AZn0h6kQ>
Subject: Re: [Teas] "Addresses" in examples in draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:14:47 -0000

Hi Adrian,

I have updated the I-D to handle this -
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-16

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:43 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just looking at draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-15 and the example in 7.1
>
> While the abstract-node-id is of type te-node-id and, per RFC 8776, might
> not be an actual IP address, the convention seems largely to be to use an
> address. So maybe it would be good to stick to the conventions for
> addresses
> in documents (RFC 5737 and
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/)
>
> Similarly, an ltp is of type te-tp-id and, per RFC 8776, is a ling
> identifier per RFC 3630 or RFC 5305. Again, this might be an interface
> address or a router ID and, while a router ID might not be a routable
> address, it would also be good to stick to the conventions for addresses in
> documents.
>
> Best,
> Adrian
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email