Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo
Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 13 July 2020 01:11 UTC
Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.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 D76663A03F2 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 g91WsRJZYdhl for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC81C3A03ED for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id d18so11790803ion.0 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jul 2020 18:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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: <CAEz6PPTm0vW+6HLjTv-dQQu7ccuRPcTN5jP4D5HtZt5nQwROYw@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR07MB53401963CB478EA84CE0FEE1A2A80@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DB7PR07MB53400D95E243D7ACE86352DAA2A90@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB53400D95E243D7ACE86352DAA2A90@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 21:11:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPRpsnO_eJiKUmCP5u8o9WwVKj4xkx9K2BsOkZsZMFscKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047680705aa48606e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FQAFTvNHo-pIKBcHX89q8Zr_cSc>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo
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, 13 Jul 2020 01:11:56 -0000
Hi Tom, Thank you much for the much-needed review. We have posted the updated revision https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-te-topo-07, 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 <ietfa@btconnect.com> 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 ...is 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 <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of tom petch < > ietfa@btconnect.com> > 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 <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Xufeng Liu < > xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> > 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 > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >
- [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-sr-t… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-… Xufeng Liu