Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo

Xufeng Liu <> Mon, 13 July 2020 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76663A03F2 for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g91WsRJZYdhl for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC81C3A03ED for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d18so11790803ion.0 for <>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7Q951qTouWVn4GUCjjY9TeXkmQHOzE1wQwYcjz6Vskg=; b=B51Ef+PRkwpUacjXVrhIZ/mPqkWl6NCseZ3R5gJmrwYzhlXfCoLwbQcx1BlNmrEzKO saS++2o/y4tHhERJ5Hp/fDYzI/DP0N5ZKHZllpp/yP5O4V3A0IUCXh5DMt+bkp3PszDI /I0XURpHpkSAWlPvMoDsUSu+h0pVXpf6mZqtqFWr9VcOUW/XzLKY3sFqWJ89U2O41Ydf D7QGhif/H1KQ9uAR8N9D9qLft+Wlkb6umC11WBKhYvxZrlr5T8u4HzQgJA5F5+JlLTLM yciD57PpH1OMSwCp37C+0LUVRcyUTpF12fRucIjXx66GxUVv51YY2ybnRwOCPTKjyi77 qgHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7Q951qTouWVn4GUCjjY9TeXkmQHOzE1wQwYcjz6Vskg=; b=Tvt+4LCvPBf+GyU+k2ni/XgXZ5pZvngnZ5bRqSr/Zt0KgvbCgjC+XUuFGLPayZxhUS YJANJEw5i+H9AYGCQYhQUu7Sp6wCrNSVYxOHpUuxEnOKP9KLkHxvj4IWh4y0lPwGF4S5 6qu4/9lFnngWBuXS4X0UIF71qWm5m36ZhIKV2GQWuLRAbt8+ZvvI7XLzIEwn/DKuNfhS jBv4xiCWsA4LXgdycAtP9UEABPBIQmJldgay82gLwqiJLFklepJMCW2WiB3MtRkv5gV9 biSAt+3Vkh+HUt0oavC5jSOQkU7S8gDULzbqKVr4CCyMSbnotpcZUTcQ4mUB1IuVfq1c fFEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NKQ/XtWjJW7FYxDrp4D+ntUyAgKFNE8grogXU0FE29nOmO8Pg 06L8+r9seEjZb/ZzwbeWNCgOcF8AbwV+JBSG4bg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw01BLP+Fe39CAD8HbuJtE2AM55q09tkB+6bzDGUMO1MhJzwWYVtlMYxVbnDDEDbKAFwbe8229A+SaMFrebcSw=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:5d49:: with SMTP id w70mr91096891jaa.16.1594602713210; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Xufeng Liu <>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 21:11:42 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: tom petch <>
Cc: TEAS WG <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047680705aa48606e"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 01:11:56 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thank you much for the much-needed review. We have posted the updated
trying to address these comments. Please also see the replies in-line below.
Best regards,
- Xufeng

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:46 AM tom petch <> wrote:

> And while you are at it ..
> I don't understand quite a lot of this I-D.
> In places it is explicit - MPLS data plane only.  Elsewhere it seems to
> claim to be for all SR as with the choice of prefix srt module name or with
> container SR or with the Abstract.  If this is MPLS data plane only. then I
> think that that needs spelling out in more places starting with the Abstract
[Xufeng]: As suggested, used MPLS throughout the document and the model,
including module name, prefixes, and container names.

> 2.1 references unicast-igp-topology - I know of no such module
[Xufeng]: Fixed the typo.

> 2.7 Both IGP and BGP are supported this BGP or BGP-LS?
[Xufeng]: Right. This is BGP-LS. Fixed the term and added some references.

> feature msd
> what if one IGP supports msd and another does not, say OSPFv2 does and
> OSPFv3 does not?  I don't know if that will happen or if it should be
> supported but, for once, YANG does have good support for such an approach
[Xufeng] msd is a device feature, independent of the protocols. In case
that one particular protocol does not support msd, the corresponding leaf
msd in the operational datastore will not have a value. Since the user
knows which protocol provides the information based on the
information-source, he will understand the reason for it.

> grouping sr topology type
> a presence container for SR-MPLS - good
> But how about
> sr node prefix attributes
> a presence container which indicates SR is enabled and
[Xufeng]: Since a prefix may or may not be configured with a Prefix-SID,
the "presence" statement will allow such an option.

> sr link attributes
> a presence container which indicates SR is enabled.
[Xufeng]:  Since an L3 link may or may not be configured with an Adj-SID,
the "presence" statement will allow such an option.

> That is eight possible combinations of presence containers with eight
> different interpretations - I do not understand what they mean.  I do
> realise that the groupings have different roles.
[Xufeng]: Two "presence" side effects relevant here are: (1) to assign a
semantic meaning (non-presence container can be ignored); (2) to stop
propagating the "mandatory" requirement to the parent container.

> RFC 7752 is the reference for BGP-LS but
> needs to be in the I-D references.

[Xufeng]: Added.

> And how about references for OSPFv2 etc?

[Xufeng]: Also added.

> Currently BGP-LS may be new and different and people want to know where to
> find it but in a year or two they may be wondering what OSPFv2 is or was.
> Since you import sr-routing-cmn I cannot see how that can fail to be a
> Normative Reference - I cannot understand the I-D without it!
[Xufeng]: Fixed.

> Tom Petch
> ________________________________________
> From: Teas <> on behalf of tom petch <
> Sent: 02 May 2020 12:16
> To: Xufeng Liu; TEAS WG
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo
> Xufeng
> I suggest you respin this I-D lest it expires in four days time.
> Tom Petch
> ________________________________________
> From: Teas <> on behalf of Xufeng Liu <
> Sent: 21 April 2020 21:10
> Current Status:
>   *  No update since IETF106 with last post on November 3, 2019.
>   *  Answered YANG doctor's review comments.
> Open Issues:
>   *   None.
> Next Steps:
>   *  Update the model to sync with the referenced models like
> draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang if there are any changes.
>   *  Welcome further reviews and suggestions.
>   *  Working Group Last Call after completing the above.
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list