[Teas] Identifiers in draft-zhang-teas-transport-service-model

"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com> Thu, 14 July 2016 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E55912D1EA; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DejOTuETTjkG; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com []) (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 8CB1012D0A2; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 588649CBB815A; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:43:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com []) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u6EIhVQE007772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:43:31 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com []) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u6EIgNXK030597 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:43:30 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:42:25 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
To: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Identifiers in draft-zhang-teas-transport-service-model
Thread-Index: AdHd/3YJplNRRE/bSOqEpubS5Z2jZw==
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:42:24 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D4891DCBC@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ETUk6xwxLGIVsQR4SrDOF8RyRYA>
Cc: "draft-zhang-teas-transport-service-model@ietf.org" <draft-zhang-teas-transport-service-model@ietf.org>
Subject: [Teas] Identifiers in draft-zhang-teas-transport-service-model
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 18:43:38 -0000

Hi all,

I have had some off-list discussions with the authors of draft-zhang-teas-transport-service-model. Regarding one specific point I look for further feedback on the list:

To me it seems a quite surprising design choice to model in a service model endpoints (tp-id) and service IDs (service-id) by an integer value (uint32). A more obvious choice to me would be e.g. a string.

This seems to be common practice in another service model of the IETF. See draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-11:

    typedef svc-id {
        type string;
         "Defining a type of service component

I think the IETF should try to align at least basic constructs in "service models" even if they apply to different technologies. Some communality at least regarding identifiers would be a good starting point, IMHO.

Is there any particular reason why IDs would have to be uint32 in a transport service model context?