Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-11.txt
Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Mon, 08 February 2021 16:48 UTC
Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.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 685D03A11BF; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:48:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1pKeXg9KNfne; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FD2E3A11B4; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 08:48:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DZBgt0zSRz67mH8; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 00:44:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:04 +0100
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:48:04 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: 'tom petch' <ietfa@btconnect.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: AQHWvq7pR/sotCFZk0qb9EumSMXwRqpO8uWg
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:48:04 +0000
Message-ID: <7a3ee5b71cd341859503925c35c631a6@huawei.com>
References: <5FB65FE8.1030409@btconnect.com> <AM6PR07MB578489FBDC931A7E8AF60326A2E00@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR07MB578489FBDC931A7E8AF60326A2E00@AM6PR07MB5784.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.91.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/F0WW_gjGn3_WXwCTu8yLaB627GQ>
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: Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:48:12 -0000
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 > " 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/ > > >
- [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-comp… internet-drafts
- [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-yang-p… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ya… Italo Busi
- Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ya… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ya… Italo Busi
- Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ya… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ya… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Fw: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ya… Italo Busi