Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Sat, 02 November 2019 01:44 UTC
Return-Path: <vishnupavan@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 3D51C12089B; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 18:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 wnIyPxLI0wI0; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 18:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42c.google.com (mail-pf1-x42c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42c]) (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 5BC9F120219; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 18:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id 193so6885582pfc.13; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:44:46 -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=IF/gCvh+Nr4O86l2cLboA1+CTFoX4701+DWcQ+UKL7E=; b=AeYYbMz4iqNOPLdnyZrTL5qJAWAQUt6fJ+h1Jnwh4NFykw/81I2W7MfP9x5h40ZVqx Tnpud16gOAmZymwysFj00ZJd+RS4n4e4bjoAMsusRNfT/i+sX4tCx9h4WAA1YR6uKkD5 SqaYaM9TN3+LQHiaC1tDwSY0YWQdHzfjDRUV89A52hnQdsTt6mem51PZgR/gcjonbvXM EnG8KPjX0lR7ljYeKOzCn4pGO+F3mOcXc5ntSc3PrRnZwu6kO5zzvwhcerVTBwB1zZY5 XM/0mFR6xdCcbcQBh/WiCbRKFWMxDIkQG1Tb9j25hCc1QpY6nDAfLchURKmmYaC5hNAN 5Sig==
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=IF/gCvh+Nr4O86l2cLboA1+CTFoX4701+DWcQ+UKL7E=; b=MUzjTAoOIR519w2UTVQvpyk7Yfz3uGlCF/H6ZbKhlyEdXLNYvLbpMrN8RKggq2zOjm NbmD4614BMDE4/WShSDK1Q/vrpBL98nSn8lFpD72Augjq5qtkcpvzGUftwVl+KQF/7fP g4pBRMby60UQQ7cSnTgkqSnJAk4tOEpyJS6y4Lf0TTtX7hYy5nUh5ou2c2lcvN4lRJCH 2O8MXWK9IrmpMVmx5vjxjh3asnZw1FizU04wv9+LVO16PyZqhKsAkidokJNcwsJIunXP +gHFwnjw2ZidooPyMjRpt8+ShLUp62wNKTqkRagMl0YrRY0bIMmYpCsCr1FQD73X3jXC sDjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV0h+mZuVWMTBsPX7p+CZKhm1Vnoo9r7b4BkbsvgRqfUlQISpy/ eVT/Drga/GO+RN7Nquek9pPAALdbVMxV1unq0kA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzv8giBWNGDizWZkGJ9zdzXxa8V/8FXFVl7oWDNJDOUpmXg5SDZdCDxjF+6hXnDbO95GTDRkTmnRjhtqrRovyk=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:c045:: with SMTP id z5mr16739428pgi.69.1572659085464; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 18:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156632204190.473.13624423113790831871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C7D8EFC7-3332-42CD-9CCC-FC6E2DBE4429@juniper.net> <20191004210217.GI6722@kduck.mit.edu> <99DCD09F-9243-469A-AC37-85C085F58452@juniper.net> <20191101205840.GM55993@kduck.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20191101205840.GM55993@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 20:44:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTsoDknaVR=WKZKD4hNbpgOn_Diwu2n_SQx4NV6uV0C-1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000245ad20596533a68"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/IxA3l9HB3RtDExkI9_itT1DK6XM>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Sat, 02 Nov 2019 01:44:54 -0000
Benjamin, Hi! There is another version coming up -- will be published before the deadline on Monday. The new version addresses the last set of nits from you (adding more text to the description of a couple of leafs). Please wait for the new version to come out and then revisit your comments. Regards, -Pavan (on behalf of the authors) On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 3:58 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > Hi Tarek, > > Thanks for asking netmod and passing on the answer -- that's quite helpful > for me to know. > > Unfortunately, I've forgotten where we are on the rest of the document -- > is there a -12 forthcoming or should I go back and look at the -11? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 05:29:26AM +0000, Tarek Saad wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > Thanks again for your comments. We poked netmod WG about the point you > raised on "ordered by user" for state list. > > The response we got (see attached), is for state lists, it's all about > what the system orders. > > > > For NMDA (intended/applied), the rw list will be marked with "ordered by > user" and applied/state returns the items as ordered by system - they are > supposed to match the user input in this case. > > > > With this, I believe the order as we have is ok. > > > > Regards, > > Tarek > > > > > > > > On 10/4/19, 5:02 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 05:41:37PM +0000, Tarek Saad wrote: > > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > > > Thank you very much for the thorough review and for the valuable > comments. We have uploaded revision -11 that attempts to address those > comments. Please see inline for detailed responses. Let us know if there > are further outstanding comments. > > > > > > On 8/20/19, 1:27 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker" < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-10: Discuss > > > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply > to all > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut this > > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > > > > Please refer to > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Kd6NW5ctLWr7GB646PVmMByvi8wQxPILpKhHvGQeRHY&m=hnPuRIqXqStfK232Nk2hmq9WsTD2edVNgVLywB7I9S8&s=-tmE5kZMwh42TgMAaC3M4xeGTxYdYNt5fZ7gnVI59m0&e= > > > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found > here: > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dteas-2Dyang-2Dte-2Dtypes_&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Kd6NW5ctLWr7GB646PVmMByvi8wQxPILpKhHvGQeRHY&m=hnPuRIqXqStfK232Nk2hmq9WsTD2edVNgVLywB7I9S8&s=RkaTEY5gt6bhkr_3YkKb0CkmkQyY4-GYjfuvWkkKVaQ&e= > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > DISCUSS: > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > There's a couple points (describe further in the comment > section) that > > > I'd like to get a bit more clarity on: > > > > > > (1) the semantics of admin-group hex strings of length smaller > than 11 > > > [TS]: RFC6991 defines the hex-string as stream of octets - > separated by colon. The below are acceptable representations that result in > same value (bit-position 0 is set). > > > 01 > > > 00:01 > > > 00:00:00:01 > > > > I'm not coming to the conclusion just based on what's written in this > > document and RFC 6991. You seem to be assuming that the hex string > is > > mapped to the four-octet bitmask using a little-endian > representation of > > the bitmask with zero padding, but I can't find where that's stated. > > [TS]: Yes, our assumption was it's HBO representation of octets for the > hex-string type. Since hex-string type seems to allow for both endianness > (seems to be the case from RFC 6991), we are OK to add text to dictate > little endian/HBO in our model for this. > > > > > > > > > (2) the units for the te-bandwidth numerical values (and in > what cases > > > no units are needed), and for > performance-metrics-*-way-bandwidth values > > > [TS]: The unit is technology dependent. For example for packet, > the example we give in the description is inline with the type > bandwidth-ieee-float32 defined in RFC8294. We can clarify this further in > description if needed. > > > > I was most concerned about the "packet switching type" since my > cursory > > look at OTN and/or DWDM indicated that the listed parameters do > imply an > > absolute bandwidth. Please do further clarify what the units are > for the > > float32 value used for packet-switching types. > > [TS]: Yes, it is bytes per second as per bandwidth-ieee-float32 > (RFC8294) -also inline with rfc3630 and rfc5305#section-3.6. We can add the > (not bits!) as per your suggestion to highlight this. > > NEW: > > "units are bytes (not bits!) per second" > > > > > (3) whether threshold-accelerated-advertisement's use of > relative vs. > > > absolute values requires any special handling > > > [TS]: these are absolute values and inline with the > rfc7810#section-5 and rfc7471#section-5 > > [comments below] > > > > > (4) whether we want to specify any > requirements/error-handling/etc. when > > > there is potential for "nonsense" configuration, such as a > > > max-constraint being configured as numerically smaller than a > > > min-constraint > > > [TS]: We have some checks where it was needed. Implementations can > also make additional restrictive checks with a deviations if needed. > > > > Okay. > > > > > (5) what the "variation" in the te-packet-types module's leafs > is > > > intending to measure. > > > [TS]: the per link delay variation as defined in RFC7823. > > > > I looked at RFC 7823 and it doesn't help me very much. Is there a > > mathematical formula for what it measures? > > > > [TS]: I think RFC3393 further clarifies the definition of PDV. > > 1.2. Definition > > > > A definition of the IP Packet Delay Variation (ipdv) can be given for > > packets inside a stream of packets. > > > > The ipdv of a pair of packets within a stream of packets is defined > > for a selected pair of packets in the stream going from measurement > > point MP1 to measurement point MP2. > > > > The ipdv is the difference between the one-way-delay of the selected > > packets. > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > COMMENT: > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > In general it's hard to examine many of these types and see > whether they > > > are fit for purpose without some sense of how they would be > used, but of > > > course following a chain of references for all of the types in > question > > > wouldu be tedious to the point of exhaustion. I'm reluctant > to start > > > getting into examples (since such a list would necessarily be > > > incomplete), but if you want one, the 'suppression-interval' > leaf has a > > > very terse description, that will presumably be supplemented > by some > > > text in some other document about what exactly is getting > suppressed and > > > when, but if I were to try to implement from just this > document I'd be > > > doing a lot of guessing. > > > > > > [TS]: Agreed. For 'suppression-interval', it is detailed in > rfc7810#section-6. We will update the description/reference for this. > > > > > > Section 3 > > > > > > types for TE generic types and ietf-te-packet-types for > packet > > > specific types. Other technology specific TE types are > outside the > > > > > > nits: "packet-specific" and "technology-specific" to hyphenate > the > > > compound adjectives. > > > [TS]: updated. > > > > > > Section 3.1 > > > > > > te-node-id: > > > > > > A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE > topology. > > > The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer > in the > > > dotted-quad notation. This attribute MAY be mapped to > the Router > > > > > > Why is te-node-id IPv4-centric? E.g., RFC 6119 describes an > "IPv6 TE > > > Router ID" TLV as well as the "TE Router ID" TLV that we > reference here > > > for the node ID. > > > Furthermore, either it's a 32-bit unsigned integer or it's > represented > > > in the dotted-quad notation, but the dotted-quad notation > doesn't really > > > count as a 32-bit unsigned integer. > > > [TS]: this was discussed on the WG mail list, and agreement was to > keep TE node ID as dotted-quad 4 octets. We updated the description as > below.. > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/bP5VurFZKQVx3hNWxUVz6alRIGg__;!8WoA6RjC81c!QzYpTPxbg-aKPGhbRPxgYU7B7c_NlriZzhfN9Ji4A_HgoQ5ByOIHiqBtYB9JKQ$ > > > We can update description to: > > > OLD: > > > The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned integer in > > > the dotted-quad notation. > > > NEW: > > > The identifier is represented as 4 octets in dotted-quad > notation. > > > te-metric: > > > > > > A type representing the TE link metric as defined in > [RFC3785]. > > > > > > (editorial) the phrase "link metric" does not appear in RFC > 3785. > > > [TS]: Sure. > > > OLD: > > > A type representing the TE <link> metric as defined in [RFC3785]. > > > > > > NEW: > > > A type representing the TE metric as defined in [RFC3785]. > > > > > > Section 3.2 > > > > > > The ietf-te-packet-types module covers the common types and > groupings > > > specific packet technology. > > > > > > nit: I think there's a word missing here. > > > [TS]: update to: > > > NEW: > > > The ietf-te-packet-types module covers the common types and > groupings > > > that are specific to packet technology. > > > > > > performance-metrics-attributes-packet: > > > > > > A YANG grouping for the augmentation of packet specific > metrics to > > > the generic performance metrics grouping parameters. > > > > > > nit(?) I can't tell which way the augmentation is supposed to > go, just > > > from this text. > > > [TS]: update text to: > > > NEW: A YANG grouping that contains the generic performance metrics > and additional packet specific metrics. > > > > > > Section 4 > > > > > > typedef admin-group { > > > type yang:hex-string { > > > /* 01:02:03:04 */ > > > length "1..11"; > > > } > > > description > > > "Administrative group/Resource class/Color > representation in > > > hex-string type."; > > > reference "RFC3630 and RFC5305"; > > > > > > RFC 5305 says to treat this as essentially a bitmask. What > are the > > > semantics when I only supply a string of (say) length 1 or 2? > > > > > > [TS]: number is stored as 32-bits. As indicated earlier: > > > 01 > > > 00:01 > > > 00:00:00:01 all indicate bit-position 0 is set and can internally > be represented as 0x00000001 > > > > > > > > > typedef performance-metrics-normality { > > > [...] > > > reference > > > "RFC7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric > Extensions. > > > RFC8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric > Extensions. > > > RFC7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly > > > Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric > > > Extensions"; > > > > > > None of these three references describes "normal" or > "abnormal". > > > [TS]: The RFCs refer to it as "anomaly or anomalous". We updated > the description to indicate this. > > > > > > typedef te-bandwidth { > > > type string { > > > pattern > > > '0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|' > > > + > '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|' > > > + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+' > > > + '(,(0[xX](0((\.0?)?[pP](\+)?0?|(\.0?))|' > > > + > '1(\.([\da-fA-F]{0,5}[02468aAcCeE]?)?)?[pP](\+)?(12[0-7]|' > > > + '1[01]\d|0?\d?\d)?)|0[xX][\da-fA-F]{1,8}|\d+))*'; > > > } > > > > > > Can the document shepherd please report what validation has > been done > > > for this pattern? > > > > > > For packet switching type, a float number is used, such > as > > > 0x1p10. > > > > > > What kind of units are implied for this (and the other types)? > > > [TS]: An answer was given earlier, let us know if that clarifies. > > > > > > typedef te-metric { > > > type uint32; > > > description "TE link metric"; > > > reference "RFC3785"; > > > > > > [same comment about "link metric" and 3785] > > > [TS]: Addressed. > > > > > > typedef te-node-id { > > > type yang:dotted-quad; > > > description > > > "A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE > > > topology. > > > The identifier is represented as 32-bit unsigned > integer in > > > the dotted-quad notation. > > > > > > [same comment about uint32 vs. dotted-quad] > > > [TS]: Addressed. > > > > > > typedef te-oper-status { > > > [...] > > > > > > Is there some way (a grouping?) to deduplicate the admin and > operational > > > status enumerations? They seem to be nearly identical in > terms of the > > > range of possible values. > > > [TS]: Yes, created a common type and referenced it the respective > typedefs. > > > > > > identity se-style-desired { > > > [...] > > > > > > (et seq) The rtgdir's comments about whether 'base' should be > present > > > seems relevant for these as well. > > > [TS]: thanks for pointing it out, added the missing base. > > > > > > identity oob-mapping-flag { > > > [....] > > > identity entropy-label-capability { > > > > > > Are all of the flags based on lsp-attributes-flags supposed to > be > > > "desired" in the description (these aren't)? > > > [TS]: These identities simply indicate the LSP attributes. Every > flag has its own semantics. The respective RFCs describe whether any action > is to be taken by nodes along the LSP path. > > > > > > identity oam-mep-entity-desired { > > > base lsp-attributes-flags; > > > description "OAM MEP entities desired"; > > > > > > We probably should expand Maintenance Entity Group End Point > (and MIP, > > > below). > > > [TS]: expanded. > > > > > > identity loopback-desired { > > > base lsp-attributes-flags; > > > description > > > "This flag indicates a particular node on the LSP is > > > required to enter loopback mode. This can also be > > > > > > Is there a mismatch between "desired" and "required"? > > > [TS]: yes, RFC7571 uses the term "required" (as we have in > description). We renamed the identity to be in sync with the RFC. > > > OLD: > > > identity loopback-desired { > > > NEW: > > > identity loopback-required { > > > > > > identity rtm-set-desired { > > > base lsp-attributes-flags; > > > description > > > "Residence Time Measurement (RTM) attribute flag"; > > > > > > Is there a mismatch regarding "desired" in the identity name > vs. > > > description? > > > [TS]: RFC 8169 section 4.4 uses "requested" - we think this can be > equated to desired. > > > <snip> > > > .. indicates to the egress node that RTM is requested > > > </snip> > > > > > > updated: > > > NEW: > > > identity rtm-set-desired { > > > description > > > "Residence Time Measurement (RTM) attribute flag > requested"; > > > > > > > > > > > > identity link-protection-type { > > > description "Base identity for link protection type."; > > > } > > > identity link-protection-unprotected { > > > base link-protection-type; > > > > > > [I assume the WG had some good discussion about identities vs. > > > enumeration and don't want to second-guess that.] > > > [TS]: yes, this was discussed and the choice was to pick > identities over enums for extensibility. We used enums in places where > extensions were not expected. > > > > > > identity association-type-recovery { > > > base association-type; > > > description > > > "Association Type Recovery used to association LSPs of > > > same tunnel for recovery"; > > > > > > nit: the grammar seems weird, here; maybe a missing word? > > > [TS]: NEW: > > > "Association Type Recovery used to associate LSPs of > > > same tunnel for recovery"; > > > > > > identity path-locally-computed { > > > base path-computation-method; > > > description > > > "indicates a constrained-path LSP in which the > > > path is computed by the local LER"; > > > reference "RFC3209"; > > > > > > In line with the gen-art reviewer's comments, a section ref > might be > > > useful here. > > > [TS]: Added references. > > > > > > identity path-externally-queried { > > > base path-computation-method; > > > description > > > [...] > > > to the external source to aid computation); and the path > that is > > > returned by the external source is not required to > provide a > > > wholly resolved path back to the originating system - > that is to > > > say, some local computation may also be required"; > > > > > > nit: "provide a wholly resolved path back to the originating > system" > > > could potentially be read ambiguously about whether "back to > the > > > originating system refers to the path or where the (partial) > result is > > > returned to. > > > [TS]: reworded: > > > NEW: > > > > ..................................................................................... > The path that is > > > returned by the external source may require further local > > > computation on the device."; > > > > > > > > > identity te-tunnel-type { > > > [...] > > > > > > There is no need for a mp2p or mp2mp tunnel type? > > > > > > identity tunnel-state-type { > > > description > > > "Base identity for TE tunnel states"; > > > [TS]: no, none standardized for TE exists as of yet. > > > > > > This is just "tunnel state" not "operational state"? > > > > > > identity lsp-state-type { > > > description > > > "Base identity for TE LSP states"; > > > > > > Is there a state machine for which transitions between states > based on > > > this identity are allowed, or is it basically just a full mesh? > > > [TS]: we've only modelled possible state outputs. There is no > standard state-machine. Implementations may execute a state-machine for > transitions, but we did not think it needs to be covered by the model. > > > > > > identity path-invalidation-action-drop-tear { > > > base path-invalidation-action-type; > > > description > > > "TE path invalidation action tear"; > > > > > > Is there a reference for this (or the other > > > path-invalidation-action-type)? My naive reading wants to > complete it > > > to "teardown" but I have low confidence that is correct. > > > [TS]: renamed identity 'teardown' and added reference to RFC3209 > section 2.5 talks about these general principles. > > > > > > identity path-metric-optimize-includes { > > > [...] > > > identity path-metric-optimize-excludes { > > > base path-metric-type; > > > description > > > "A metric that optimizes the number of excluded resources > > > specified in a set"; > > > > > > optimizes to minimize or maximize it? > > > [TS]: Update to: > > > NEW: > > > "A metric that optimizes to a maximum the number of > excluded resources > > > specified in a set"; > > > > > > grouping performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth { > > > [....] > > > > > > What are the units on the bandwidth values herein? bits per > second? > > > [TS]: The type bandwidth-ieee-float32 is defined in RFC8294. The > expected units are bytes per second (this is also inline with rfc3630 and > rfc5305#section-3.6). > > > > I note that RFC 5305 even feels a need for a parenthetical: "units > are > > bytes (not bits!) per second". To me, the risk/reward is clearly in > favor > > of being explicit. > > [TS]: addressed earlier. > > > > > container threshold-accelerated-advertisement { > > > description > > > "When the difference between the last advertised > value and > > > current measured value exceed this threshold, > anomalous > > > announcement will be triggered."; > > > uses performance-metrics-thresholds; > > > > > > Are we reusing the performance-metrics-threshold container, > which up > > > until now has been used for absolute measurements, to hold the > > > corresponding relative values (differences)? > > > [TS]: yes, but these are currently defined as absolute threshold > values - not differences/relative. > > > > The "difference between the last advertised value and current > measured > > value" is a difference with respect to a baseline, which, while still > > measured in the same units, is qualitatively different than an > absolute > > value (i.e., against zero baseline). The difference is much smaller > than > > when we go to a percentage difference, where the units change, but > the > > semantics are slightly different. Anyway, it sounds like you don't > think > > there is a problem here, so I can accpet that. > > > > > grouping optimization-metric-entry { > > > [...] > > > leaf weight { > > > > > > Where is the sense of the 'weight' leaf defined? That is, to > larger > > > weight values get more traffic or less traffic? > > > [TS]: this weight is input to optimization function when trying to > optimize for multiple metrics. A higher weight signifies a more important > metric when trying to find optimal path. > > > > What reference chain can the reader follow to learn this fact? > > [TS]: several references for multiple metric optimization can be found > in literature.. The closest in IETF I found was in rfc8189. We can add it > to the reference/description. > > > > > container path-srlgs-names { > > > [...] > > > leaf-list names { > > > type string; > > > description "List named SRLGs"; > > > > > > nit: missing "of"? > > > [TS]: updated. > > > > > > grouping generic-path-disjointness { > > > description "Path disjointness grouping"; > > > leaf disjointness { > > > type te-path-disjointness; > > > description > > > "The type of resource disjointness. > > > Under primary path, disjointness level applies to > > > all secondary LSPs. Under secondary, disjointness > > > level overrides the one under primary"; > > > > > > What does "under" mean? It seems like it has something to do > with the > > > position in the hierarchy where this grouping gets > instantiated, which > > > is potentially subtle. > > > [TS]: Reworded to clarify. > > > NEW: > > > "The type of resource disjointness. > > > When configured for a primary path, the disjointness > level applies to > > > all secondary LSPs. When configured for a secondary > path, disjointness > > > level overrides the one configured for the primary > path"; > > > > > > container path-properties { > > > config false; > > > [...] > > > container path-route-objects { > > > description > > > "Container for the list of route objects either > returned by > > > the computation engine or actually used by an LSP"; > > > list path-route-object { > > > key index; > > > ordered-by user; > > > > > > (How do 'config false' and 'ordered-by user' interact?) > > > [TS]: We discussed this within the authors. We think ‘ordered-by > user’ for config false leafs will be ignored -- and hence would fallback to > the default (‘ordered-by system’) as per RFC6020. Note, we think this is a > common behavior that affect NMDA model(s) when extracting applied > configuration. Please correct our thinking if this is not true and we’ll > try to address it. > > > > I have essentially no domain knowledge on this point; we'd need to > call in > > some outside expert if we feel an authoritative answer is important. > > [TS]: emailed to netmod and response stated earlier. > > > > Regards, > > Tarek > > > > Thanks for the updates, > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > > > > Section 5 > > > > > > grouping performance-metrics-attributes-packet { > > > [...] > > > uses te-types:performance-metrics-attributes { > > > augment performance-metrics-one-way { > > > leaf one-way-min-delay { > > > [...] > > > leaf one-way-max-delay { > > > > > > What kind of sanity or error checking is there for the nodes > in this > > > model, e.g., if max delay is configured to be smaller than min > delay? > > > [TS]: these are measured values over a time period and maintained > as state. The minimum/maximum being over the last period. > > > > > > leaf one-way-delay-variation { > > > type uint32 { > > > range 0..16777215; > > > } > > > description "One-way delay variation in micro > seconds."; > > > > > > What does "variation" mean? Deviation from mean? Variance? > Mean > > > absolute error? > > > [TS]: This attempts to model the parameters as described in > RFC7823 (including delay variation/jitter). > > > > > > leaf one-way-packet-loss { > > > type decimal64 { > > > fraction-digits 6; > > > range "0 .. 50.331642"; > > > > > > Is there a reason for the oddly specific upper limit? > > > [TS]: this is described in > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7810*section-4.4__;Iw!8WoA6RjC81c!QzYpTPxbg-aKPGhbRPxgYU7B7c_NlriZzhfN9Ji4A_HgoQ5ByOIHiqAcSkO6tw$ > . Updated the description and reference to indicate this. > > > “Link Loss: This 24-bit field carries link packet loss as a > percentage > > > of the total traffic sent over a configurable interval. The > basic > > > unit is 0.000003%, where (2^24 - 2) is 50.331642%. “ > > > > > > > > > I also can't quite convince myself from the RFC 7950 grammar > whether the > > > quotes on the range are valid and/or needed. > > > [TS]: RF7950 expects a string for the range argument - so it's OK. > Also, made it consistent across the modules > > > > > > I also am unsure as to how useful the "normality" is for some > of these, > > > like the packet loss and delay-variation values. > > > [TS]: RFC7823 suggests possible utility of those values. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Tarek > > > > > > [same comments about two-way metrics as one-way metrics, I > think. > > > Also the -packet variants.] > > > > > > Section 7 > > > > > > We probably could say more here if we want, though I'm as-yet > decided on > > > whether we should. > > > That is, things like editing the config could cause traffic > to be > > > disallowed, routed on suboptimal paths, routed through > locations more > > > easily targeted for other purposes, etc., and reading > config/status > > > could reveal information about network topology, which sites > might be > > > most sensitive as targets for subsequent attacks, etc.. It's > less clear > > > if there's much that would allow for identification of specific > > > users/customers or their traffic, though. Maybe some of the > DSCP stuff, > > > in some cases. > > > > > > Section 10.2 > > > > > > A question for the responsible AD: do references that are used > in > > > "reference" statements need to be normative references? > (E.g., RFC > > > 3471.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:42:57 +0100 (CET) > > From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> > > To: tsaad@juniper.net > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org, i_bryskin@yahoo.com, > > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Effect of ordered by user on state(config false) > list > > X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2 > > > > Hi, > > > > Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > We are wondering if “ordered by user” has any effect on a (config > > > false)/state list? > > > Given RFC6020 specifies “ordered by system” as the default order, does > > > this mean it is the order assumed for a state list with “ordered by > > > user”? > > > > There is no effect "on the wire"; the entries are sent in the order > > determined by the server in both cases. But it informs to the > > consumer of the data model that the order of the list entries carries > > some meaning. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:47:53 +0000 > > From: "Schönwälder, Jürgen" <J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> > > To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> > > CC: "tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org" <tsaad@juniper.net>, > > "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" > > <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" > > <netmod@ietf.org> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Effect of ordered by user on state(config false) > list > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:42:57AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Tarek Saad <tsaad=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > We are wondering if “ordered by user” has any effect on a (config > > > > false)/state list? > > > > Given RFC6020 specifies “ordered by system” as the default order, > does > > > > this mean it is the order assumed for a state list with “ordered by > > > > user”? > > > > > > There is no effect "on the wire"; the entries are sent in the order > > > determined by the server in both cases. But it informs to the > > > consumer of the data model that the order of the list entries carries > > > some meaning. > > > > > > > For operational is always about what the system actually does. > > > > For ordered by user entries configured by intended, the order of > > entries used by the system should be the order defined by the users > > but ultimately operational needs to report what is actually used. (If > > a system fails to honor ordered by user, this should be visible from > > comparing operational and intended. This is essential for debugging.) > > > > /js > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 < > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.jacobs-university.de/__;!8WoA6RjC81c!Q1j8Eo7gWrzRD2s-zQP9mzf1CEc2Apf6phYBzgFGry5SdHbe1fXOKi13j0aTUw$ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >
- [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-tea… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf… Tarek Saad