Re: [Teas] teas-yang-te was Re: TEAS WG Document Status Reports yang-te

t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> Thu, 30 April 2020 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfa@btconnect.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 5E55A3A090E; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 03:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.719
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.82, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.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 Be1l0KsHSvzN; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 03:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR04-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr80123.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.8.123]) (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 E39583A0906; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 03:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ByBcylnpzw+8Ti2n1U2mqHLyYzn4zxAep4ZWoS9j3k5SRlLusOvtNlFwL/Dhily+elBN+Dzjf6Qwibn5kQAxRXib04N+BP9FPPDlvIrIIVKwy8EhBP+BDbgrwyDbljM7KBMGeviPVqkrwwuTaLnTj6kg534gyuFsQN5ybEcuto5uACFs1MZZJO3O48Al3cL7AdwJ96YBlxEBvZ6Pp/UWeAhh0n/SakX7lWFaOGgNX+mh9i/SMnnGd7wxvBgkk4aVSS7uJdY5uBMyFetYhMZBGCIOMOe5vwdJk6FEbVqaBy7f1Ri435geuRFqqiayuO8qNNXPFtCVNxl7D4NamJRcSg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cT4ADldPe9Sl3U7+ZWuE+hTtTX1gCrZqqNBBUiCZPcI=; b=k9TLk20RADCHqPLW9tL1qfih/c2jv6mqN1P9hDxWVoPHzXuqAeC6oB0pyrE+YqyumXbekZflLO5eQyrp1saBQiSaMUDFbp2zPHAho2uzRcpkGOS1ie/irLlwzE8vpb+OYh9B8Mx18hOKts9zeXHoQUJVBI09hElhRp0Po9916sXdmqrFhO9xviuzdo2AHyOZwOg4OP3425UF5fXktwn7L2oCk8siYZdwrpmIaTt3jnrr1iQ7kkgCQ1XLMT9yMgY/tY8thaUg9RCBLdOL6e8R7dzq4JkAV401wnSFZ2qlIPVQ1wqAM83U3jCnif+MfDpC7HI6Z0DaUuvvfeCPtaNN7g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=cT4ADldPe9Sl3U7+ZWuE+hTtTX1gCrZqqNBBUiCZPcI=; b=wQ8eXirZgE6dBwxU56TpcTanY7hlFwRa/HSuaEmF5anb3U4iUF3v8cA8mg+rmPIqKuL5g8Dq/GYcZWSKTP9yF+n0KQaEf1EtpAOsuiOXltWJj85zxmzTy8nZguPPpVNvB7j8ic1RCLcuIk4ftgVSvrYFqmpoo8JYkuXmY2G+264=
Authentication-Results: ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;ietf.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=btconnect.com;
Received: from DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:69::25) by DB7PR07MB3945.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:5:5::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2958.14; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:48:04 +0000
Received: from DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6d73:b879:b380:bed4]) by DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6d73:b879:b380:bed4%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2958.020; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:48:04 +0000
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, teas@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te@ietf.org
From: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Message-ID: <5EAABAF0.20607@btconnect.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:48:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ClientProxiedBy: LO2P265CA0123.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:9f::15) To DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:69::25)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (81.131.229.19) by LO2P265CA0123.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:9f::15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.20.2937.13 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:48:04 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [81.131.229.19]
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: e0e57805-59f4-4ddf-c967-08d7ecf3f601
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: DB7PR07MB3945:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <DB7PR07MB39454CAA9DF61C1A938BEE91A2AA0@DB7PR07MB3945.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:400;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0389EDA07F
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: 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
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(346002)(39860400002)(376002)(366004)(396003)(136003)(2906002)(26005)(52116002)(6666004)(53546011)(66946007)(66556008)(186003)(86362001)(16526019)(36756003)(66476007)(33656002)(8676002)(5660300002)(966005)(8936002)(316002)(6486002)(2616005)(478600001)(956004)(16576012)(4326008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData: 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
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e0e57805-59f4-4ddf-c967-08d7ecf3f601
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2020 10:48:04.6740 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: qiPibLBVjn0IVKRPD33cg4Iet26y87vQQesZj/npAKwenvFA+/BErcLRNSMML6UPhyJRIreNbUTNkFWATFzG7w==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR07MB3945
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/FbaeVc7VboFYD2fVMtFRgjRz3Nw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] teas-yang-te was Re: TEAS WG Document Status Reports yang-te
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:48:13 -0000

Another set of quirks, mostly, but not all, admin.

Abbreviations are used in the YANG module but only one is expanded.  I
think you should expand, on first use,
BRPC    GCO     APS     LoP
  SD         SF         SRLG   MS   WTR
Also it would help a reader to include them all in s.1.1

References, always a good idea, but need to be  in I-D references;  I
cannot see
RFC5440  RFC5441 RFC5520 RFC5557
RFC8306  RFC8685

    identity tunnel-admin-auto {
'state datastore'
is this operational?


    grouping path-preference {
    leaf preference {  type uint8 {  range "1..255";   }
        default 1;
in -22, default was was 1 for  grouping p2p-path-properties {
          100 for grouping tunnel-p2p-config {
I realise that the groupings have changed - is the change of default
intentional?

    grouping protection-restoration-properties-state {
  'The freeze command command'

          enum protecting {
'e.g.'
is that really i.e.?

      leaf protection-group-ingress-node-id {
/extenal/external/

      leaf protection-group-egress-node-id {
/extenal/external/

      container restoration {
        leaf hold-off-time {
            "The time between the declaration of an SF or SD condition
             and the initialization of the protection switching
             algorithm.";
sounds like protection not restoration

What triggers the start of the hold-off-time?


      leaf bidirectional {
        type boolean;
I always like my booleans to indicate which is true which false i.e.
start the description with 'When true ...' (or not as the case may be)

    grouping tunnel-protection-actions {
               By default, if neither ingress nor egress node-id
should the YANG be in line with this description e.g. with a choice?
What happens in both ingress and egress are specified as the YANG
allows?

    grouping named-admin-groups-properties {
      leaf bit-position {  type uint32;
        description  "Bit position representing the administrative
group.";
        reference "RFC3209 and RFC7308";
admin group does not appear in RFC3209 - RFC7308 is extended i.e. in
excess of 32 bit which is not what the YANG specifies

    rpc tunnels-actions {
          choice filter-type {
            mandatory true;  description "Filter choice";
            case all-tunnels {
              leaf all { type empty;
                mandatory true;
I am unclear what the YANG is doing but I do find choice mandatory
  complex

       rpc link-state-update {
likewise

Tom Petch

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 10:14 AM
>
>> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of tom petch
> <ietfa@btconnect.com>
>> Sent: 27 April 2020 17:29
>> Subject: Re: [Teas] TEAS WG Document Status Reports  yang-te
>>
>> <tp>
>> this I-D is BIGG so I expect that I will be noticing things for months
> to come so here are some more
>>
>> Editors/Authors are listed in four places, top, bottom and both YANG
> modules and the lists differ
>>
>> IANA Considerations has no Registrant Contact for the uri
>>
>> tree diagram lacks reference to RFC8340
>>
>> downstream-info
>> when origin-type != egress
>> Applicable to ingress LSP only
>> is a mismatch - when will allow transit
>>
>> enum link-down
>> "Link-up flooding trigger"
>> mismatch
>>
>> advertized-level-areas
>> " List of areas .. is advertised in"
>> mismatch, I think the list name is wrong
>> (stupid autocorrect:-)
>>
>> tom petch
>>
>> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Tarek Saad
> <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
>> Sent: 21 April 2020 22:39
>>
>> Below is status reports for the below documents.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tarek (for the document co-authors)
>>
>>
>> 1. draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-23
>> Current Status:
>>
>>    *   Version -21 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments
>>
>>    *   Authors addressed all comments in version -23 (already
> uploaded).
>>    *   Team meeting regularly to address open issues - tracked on
> https://github.com/tsaad-dev/te/issues
>>    *   Will publish new version -24 before asking for WGLC
>> Open Issues:
>>    *   None.
>> Next Steps:.
>>
>>    *   Authors will followup with YANG Dr. to make sure no further
> comments
>>    *   Will request a Working Group Last Call after completing the
> above
>>
>> <tp>
>> I think that there is quite a bit wrong with this I-D from an
> administrative viewpoint some of which may be more debatable than
> others.
>>
>> It is VERRY  BIGGG which makes it hard to digest which for me is not
> helped by having 52 pages of uninterrupted tree diagram at the start (or
> is that intended to discourage anyone from going further?).  I see other
> authors taking two variations.  One is to put the entire module tree
> diagram at the end as an appendix.  The other is to include bite size
> chunks with sections of text.  You sort of do that s.3 but for me there
> is too little tree diagram in those sections.  Look for example at
> draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm which is only 122 pages but which I think
> gets a better balance in its section 6 of interspersing text with tree
> diagram and making it possible to follow.
>>
>> Less debatably,
>> - the prefix in the YANG does not match prefix in IANA Considerations.
>> - the Security Considerations are out of date..
>> - the device module would be better In a separate section
>> - s.4 lists [4872] twice
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>
>> 2. draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-11
>> Current Status:
>>
>>    *   Version -10 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments
>>
>>    *   Authors published version -12 which addressed all outstanding
> comments
>>    *   Authors followed up with YANG Dr. reviewer on closing comments
>> Open Issues:
>>
>>    *   None
>> Next Steps:
>>
>>    *   Proceed to WGLC
>>
>>
>> 3. draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-te-07
>> Current Status:
>>
>>    *   Version -07 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments
>> Open Issues:
>>
>>    *   Authors working on addressing YANG Dr. comments
>> Next Steps:
>>
>>    *   Folllow-up with YANG Dr. reviewer to close on comments
>>    *   Proceed to WGLC after addressing
>>
>> 4. draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-mpls
>> Current Status:
>>
>>    *   Authors discussing augmentation of this module for MPLS-TP
>>    *   A new module and model is expected
>> Open Issues:
>>
>>    *   Close on MPLS-TP modeling
>> Next Steps:
>>
>>    *   Publish a new revision
>>    *   Ask for YANG Dr. review
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>> .
>>
>>