Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard

Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net> Fri, 05 July 2019 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad@juniper.net>
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 939D6120071; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 t3aD550hVVxJ; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 958B412006E; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x65GWqu4022687; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 09:35:39 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=tH3l6gThymVrX1dVQOpmgdLZpz58aJkEuprp5qAMyFI=; b=LuKdxnGx3+DgqKAY6sLwoIHHzTHfUxfTcPSerK4uePmjkhcpyN2FvsNE4JrFzhYiAlFu FqWQnmwxouJPZqaz8RX+e5QZNHiTh2gyFjXoML6Nx663rsBvE06vyDEzxwO5PXKeiQyD nhhi2uOkGLmIh+yfaPLapptRpbfzzP8tDIPjOPFd4/+pPenBF6eTP2E7gbCGA/iWbPKJ D0ZgUQ0w6ZabsyVs8+19DLNkYAFIkO5/0oAluBz+f7O7H5BeDWFsguBlzNncWMhcsHsp 0xPdpjhthFqq8v2N5AZOKwfzdEEuvGS+bNRYTO7g5RMGrAnwMecyzX1x77ooTYbvIjjV Yw==
Received: from nam05-dm3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam05lp2050.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.49.50]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tj3hk0nen-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 09:35:38 -0700
Received: from BYAPR05MB4341.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.202.29) by BYAPR05MB6293.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.178.51.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2052.15; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:35:36 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4341.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b1f7:984:312c:6689]) by BYAPR05MB4341.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b1f7:984:312c:6689%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2073.004; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:35:36 +0000
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad@juniper.net>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types@ietf.org>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHVITYDbdIAH+mi2UGL51LY4hpro6a8GdyA
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 16:35:36 +0000
Message-ID: <F2011E43-4C5B-469B-AEF0-60B441BAC3CF@juniper.net>
References: <01c101d52135$6791f660$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <01c101d52135$6791f660$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1a.0.190609
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b1511198-cfde-4a98-bb7d-08d70166cf0e
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB6293;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB6293:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 4
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB62931CF85A9D61CFC1519EE6B7F50@BYAPR05MB6293.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:3826;
x-forefront-prvs: 008960E8EC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(376002)(136003)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(53824002)(13464003)(58126008)(486006)(316002)(6246003)(81156014)(81166006)(305945005)(71190400001)(6486002)(296002)(229853002)(14444005)(476003)(8676002)(8936002)(53936002)(186003)(5660300002)(256004)(2616005)(54906003)(478600001)(4326008)(7736002)(68736007)(11346002)(99286004)(966005)(14454004)(5024004)(446003)(33656002)(36756003)(71200400001)(6436002)(102836004)(6506007)(26005)(53546011)(25786009)(86362001)(3846002)(66066001)(6512007)(6116002)(2906002)(66556008)(66476007)(66946007)(73956011)(64756008)(66446008)(76116006)(6306002)(6916009)(76176011)(111480200001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB6293; H:BYAPR05MB4341.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: fo/c2GcNzk9xcsAXg7MBMZxVhonL6CCEekJU7ibo8+Acyllg3B7lQgR88aHw87bwE7KF/0q20O+dYTaCFN0P3Z3pA6azaxRi5W0lrh4ddxqTC5ucSxsgSQUu7QuY0PeTCHfTuozT3lZPlCyl80A6g2JZueFX5Z1CpVDOMbOqbsnKr7b7sXrSTC3K1HNyPUucPJDz7KpadXztLmJJ+wnY45JygAYBHi75Gms5j6U02CusaBsWo/l7cD6TwU0Ce4wxpR0Hss0QtIwhTMYqvl7h6/y5guanlO3q45u4F3xijhH4aDzr/Io7tBsrbmRREvin8bQBsH4jXE3+ZIxWxzP6SyjlK/ySP4J8KccqjZKj39WEEDWWTeVqTYtF7rMXcDyotWM/L7k7IYyxLtof+bNcIL6XMhqwhCnp3mQ3vTsJDfM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C5234775749F0B42BFCF066975DE55CC@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b1511198-cfde-4a98-bb7d-08d70166cf0e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Jul 2019 16:35:36.6806 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tsaad@juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB6293
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-05_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1907050202
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BU9AAB-uDwEZgt0N_WxU_7eyTG4>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
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, 05 Jul 2019 16:35:50 -0000

Hi tom/all,

The authors of ID. draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types discussed this further and decided to remove duplication from it (including the ODU identities). Those identities will be kept defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.

We've posted a new revision-10 for this and diffs are at:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-10.txt

Regards,
Tarek

On 6/12/19, 11:46 AM, "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>; wrote:

    And now it would appear  we have quadruplicate definitions with the
    advent of
    draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types
    which has a comprehensive, and different, set of ODU (upper case) types.
    
    Tom Petch
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>;
    Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 4:43 PM
    
    
    > Tarek
    >
    > You asked about my reference to definitions in triplicate which my
    later
    > response did not expand on.
    >
    > The three I was counting were this I-D, exisiting IANA registries
    (some
    > of
    > which are identical to this I-D, some not) and the LSR I-D
    > draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
    > which contains definitions of switching capability which I see
    > overlapping a part of this I-D.  I thought I saw an e-mail from
    > Stephane,
    > around Christmas, saying he would discuss this with other chairs but
    > cannot now find it so perhaps the wish was father to the thought.
    >
    > The LSR I-D is now in AD review on the LSR list and so may get more
    > attention.
    >
    > Tom Petch
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Tarek Saad" <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;
    > To: "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com>;; <ietf@ietf.org>;; "Igor
    > Bryskin" <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>;
    > Cc: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>;; <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;;
    > <teas@ietf.org>;; <db3546@att.com>;
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 10:13 PM
    > Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt>
    > (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
    >
    >
    > > Hi Tom,
    > >
    > > Thanks for sharing your feedback.
    > > I'm attaching Igor's response on this topic -- which I share his
    same
    > opinion.
    > > Please see more comments inline from me [TS]..
    > >
    > > On 5/15/19, 7:16 AM, "Teas on behalf of tom petch"
    > <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of daedulus@btconnect.com>; wrote:
    > >
    > >     The approach taken by this I-D worries me.
    > >
    > >     It provides YANG identities for a wide range of values used in
    TE,
    > such
    > >     as encoding types and switching capabilities; so far, so good.
    > > [TS]: As mentioned in abstract, the module is not strictly
    identities.
    > It is a collection of re-usable YANG groupings, types and identities.
    > >
    > >     These definitions were needed, and were in a large part created
    by
    > >     RFC3471, in 2003.  When the management of GMPLS was specified,
    in
    > MIB
    > >     modules, these definitions were put under IANA control and they
    > remain
    > >     there to this day.  They were updated by e.g. RFC8330 (February
    > 2018)
    > >     and RFC8363 (May 2018) so these IANA registries are not some
    dusty
    > old
    > >     relic but a current, living specification.
    > >
    > >     These YANG definitions have much in common with the IANA SMI
    > registries
    > >     but they are not the same.  A comparison of e.g. switching
    > capabilities
    > >     suggests that this YANG module is out-of-date compared with the
    > IANA SMI
    > >     registry (as with RFC8330, RFC8363) and omits several values for
    > no
    > >     stated reason ( the deprecated 2,3,4, 40 PBB-TE, 151 WSON-LSC).
    > > [TS]: it was not the intention to be exhaustive in covering all IANA
    > defined entities. However, the objective was to model enough that
    would
    > make TE feature (modelled in other modules) usable and to leverage the
    > power of YANG augmentation for any extensions that may not be covered
    in
    > a base model. Specifically, the authors favored the use of YANG
    > identities over enums to allow for the extensibility of augmentation.
    > >
    > >     The approach taken by other WG has been to take a IANA registry
    > and
    > >     provide a parallel YANG module under common IANA control as has
    > been
    > >     done for e.g. interfaces with both MIB module and YANG module
    > being
    > >     updated in parallel as appropriate.
    > >
    > >     Here something seems to have gone wrong.  We have a parallel set
    > of
    > >     definitions not acknowledging the existing ones and being
    > out-of-date
    > >     compared with the existing ones.
    > >
    > >     Furthermore, some of these definitions are duplicated in the
    work
    > of the
    > >     LSR WG giving us (at least) three definitions.
    > > [TS]: it would help to point to the duplication or thread that this
    > was discussed in. However, we believe that this document covers TE
    data
    > and hence LSR module(s) would need to eliminate duplication of any TE
    > data (if any).. LSR module can always import TE types to use the TE
    > definitions.
    > >
    > >     I raised this issue before Christmas 2018 and was told that the
    > chairs
    > >     of TEAS and LSR would get together and get back to me.  Nothing
    > appears
    > >     to have changed.
    > >
    > >     In passing, IANA has separate SMI registries for e.g.LSP
    encoding,
    > >     Switching Types and so on, which seems a sound engineering
    > approach,
    > >     allowing more flexible evolution compared to the 60-page
    monolith
    > of
    > >     this single YANG module.
    > > [TS]: In this effort, we've followed similar approach to RFC8294,
    > RFC6021. Etc.. Do you see the same concerns there too?
    > >
    > > Regards,
    > > Tarek
    > >
    > >     ..Tom Petch
    > >
    > >     ----- Original Message -----
    > >     From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>;
    > >     Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 9:47 PM
    > >
    > >     > The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering
    > >     Architecture and
    > >     > Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: -
    > 'Traffic
    > >     > Engineering Common YANG Types'
    > >     >   <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> as Proposed Standard
    > >     >
    > >     > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
    > solicits
    > >     final
    > >     > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
    the
    > >     > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-05-16. Exceptionally,
    > comments may
    > >     be
    > >     > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain
    the
    > >     beginning of
    > >     > the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
    > >     >
    > >     > Abstract
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >    This document defines a collection of common data types and
    > >     groupings
    > >     >    in YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types
    > and
    > >     >    groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model
    > Traffic
    > >     >    Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities.
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     > The file can be obtained via
    > >     >
    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dteas-2Dyang-2Dte-2Dtypes_&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Kd6NW5ctLWr7GB646PVmMByvi8wQxPILpKhHvGQeRHY&m=MgJhvGt3mLwf8f9oWtdgerXDnDXzWE5pvU6BFj8r864&s=sTdVI3lRGKKmF89yGm2eFIv8r_KS-Dn_Ar-YQ-OtKRk&e= 
    > >     >
    > >     > IESG discussion can be tracked via
    > >     >
    > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dteas-2Dyang-2Dte-2Dtypes_ballot_&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Kd6NW5ctLWr7GB646PVmMByvi8wQxPILpKhHvGQeRHY&m=MgJhvGt3mLwf8f9oWtdgerXDnDXzWE5pvU6BFj8r864&s=c4E4U0W3y8jCefYdsYmyyXDNIHRnmrJu_rteKNOqfP0&e= 
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >     >
    > >
    > >     _______________________________________________
    > >     Teas mailing list
    > >     Teas@ietf.org
    > >     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Kd6NW5ctLWr7GB646PVmMByvi8wQxPILpKhHvGQeRHY&m=MgJhvGt3mLwf8f9oWtdgerXDnDXzWE5pvU6BFj8r864&s=A1Ci3lsylJh4kVbFSx9zv21ELU9q5wsSx6lJ_fCQCTQ&e= 
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    --
    > --------
    >
    >
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > Teas mailing list
    > > Teas@ietf.org
    > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_teas&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Kd6NW5ctLWr7GB646PVmMByvi8wQxPILpKhHvGQeRHY&m=MgJhvGt3mLwf8f9oWtdgerXDnDXzWE5pvU6BFj8r864&s=A1Ci3lsylJh4kVbFSx9zv21ELU9q5wsSx6lJ_fCQCTQ&e= 
    > >
    >