Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard

"Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)" <sergio.belotti@nokia.com> Wed, 26 June 2019 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.belotti@nokia.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 21D39120254; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nokia.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 deAFOA8d5i4v; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR02-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr00132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.0.132]) (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 F2373120236; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 02:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nokia.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-nokia-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=Wz+if4EwJiCU4Ap+rI5RWswUcRNdzLzQKMarFrNuD/M=; b=ruNx+dzf28rsWecHvRMwiCTuHYXHzkX52UuVLqT/92/S5p1tAwsq8d0nOpk8tByvd5dbTj8YNa1VtvFFu74vynCK+btwQrdHPhxcm3yFYBX1scZ5yX/ppe+xwh2N7twP+icLVY2IF4zcb1ZJ+U9IbmlD5b6KzZKgu5mbWmZKUT4=
Received: from HE1PR07MB3195.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.170.246.10) by HE1PR07MB4331.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.176.167.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2008.12; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:29:14 +0000
Received: from HE1PR07MB3195.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::70d1:b6ab:c022:f920]) by HE1PR07MB3195.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::70d1:b6ab:c022:f920%3]) with mapi id 15.20.2008.018; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:29:14 +0000
From: "Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)" <sergio.belotti@nokia.com>
To: "Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)" <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
CC: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>, Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, "Beller, Dieter (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <dieter.beller@nokia.com>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHVITYDbdIAH+mi2UGL51LY4hpro6amA4kAgAd+yoCAADskkA==
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:29:14 +0000
Message-ID: <HE1PR07MB3195D73B7D184DD9A379F5FB91E20@HE1PR07MB3195.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <01c101d52135$6791f660$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAEz6PPQgH3a1WeK2gfY23KH3Q=WmD196rc6-8TT0_05CKRhMMw@mail.gmail.com> <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43B7FDEDB@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43B7FDEDB@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=sergio.belotti@nokia.com;
x-originating-ip: [131.228.32.183]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c6a5256a-60e9-4fd3-e857-08d6fa18c105
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:HE1PR07MB4331;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR07MB4331:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <HE1PR07MB4331F3EE42205E0CC790676C91E20@HE1PR07MB4331.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00808B16F3
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(136003)(396003)(346002)(39860400002)(366004)(53824002)(189003)(13464003)(199004)(186003)(71190400001)(2906002)(68736007)(9686003)(3846002)(26005)(236005)(6116002)(790700001)(7736002)(64756008)(53546011)(66476007)(66446008)(66556008)(11346002)(606006)(74316002)(25786009)(446003)(486006)(66066001)(33656002)(476003)(71200400001)(73956011)(76116006)(99286004)(66946007)(54906003)(110136005)(229853002)(102836004)(5024004)(14444005)(256004)(6246003)(6436002)(6506007)(316002)(7416002)(7696005)(53936002)(8676002)(81156014)(55016002)(76176011)(52536014)(86362001)(478600001)(54896002)(14454004)(6306002)(966005)(107886003)(81166006)(5660300002)(4326008)(8936002)(111480200001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR07MB4331; H:HE1PR07MB3195.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nokia.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 1xTpMj1yicWOzllL08D15Qu+v59R7is3Mcp3+8IwRuQv5omVqvk8rDrHka23rgnTB8/KfnwABphjdmEqbG0GXXf/qwxdCW68lkoAIU7Mpc4sDXNL9TmYxcYOejGxufL3cEEvr4KTafIlQE5YOREgY7oHnJfwsCyJyA8Bq5LOVATWev4OLBMHSrpGrKnEk3d4LVVcA17IJNN/lSn9YpGo6lW6FfqdWbU8lFW2YaBP2oTa4TegLRxJNvLND3HBy78fSmX9iM68KZsrQ1K1mZ263F9XNQ/7MwnsLzcgLKyUD/+h6/8M2N3U+b1AHRs3/AGQBcQ5AUvMT/UGvLHENKUPhJdtxGgScO2J7TAAKVCDtMD1xJ1VZlXez/iuu8effi5brlj++pZ8cATvtA37jEoCOXUcASDcRH8iJooW3A/X5nk=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_HE1PR07MB3195D73B7D184DD9A379F5FB91E20HE1PR07MB3195eurp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c6a5256a-60e9-4fd3-e857-08d6fa18c105
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Jun 2019 09:29:14.2593 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5d471751-9675-428d-917b-70f44f9630b0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: sergio.belotti@nokia.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR07MB4331
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Ms49PcoeA5Ougue2RdTSyO_hUOg>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:29:23 -0000

Hi Haomian, Xufeng,

Sincerely I do not think it would be a good idea to separate ODU definitions. The separation of “basic” ODU types with respect the “extended” ones appears to me not clear at all.
The scope to create a technology specific types module is exactly to encompass types definition that is proper to one technology (or layer , if we expand at L1 as name , e.g. OTN + SDH). To take separation in different modules on definitions regarding a technology specific , has no sense for me and it only produces confusion.
So, my suggestion is to use the new one L1 draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types for all ODU types definitions, and clean up te-types of all ODU reference.

Thanks
Sergio

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 7:46 AM
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>;; tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>;
Cc: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>;; ietf <ietf@ietf.org>;; db3546@att.com; teas-chairs@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org; Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>;
Subject: 答复: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard

Hi, Xufeng,

Thank you for sharing the opinion, I like the idea ‘Keep the basic ODU type definitions in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types’. The current misunderstanding would be ‘what is the basic ODU types’, and ‘what is the extended ODU types’ as well.

I have also reviewed how this was proceeded on Layer 0 types, they were divided into ‘cwdm+dwdm+flexi-grid’ which are high-level categories. And more specifically, ‘dwdm-100ghz’ is considered as technical-specific and put in the module ietf-layer0-types. Therefore, if we follow the similar rule as layer 0, my preference would be ‘ODUk + ODUCn’ as generic (should be in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types) while the {ODU0, ODU1, ODU2, …, ODUflex} would be technology-specific and put in the module ietf-layer1-types.

Regarding the last two bullets from your email, it’s fine to have te-types in both layer0-types and layer1-types, even if none of them has the importation so far.

Best wishes,
Haomian

发件人: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Xufeng Liu
发送时间: 2019年6月21日 19:18
收件人: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>>
抄送: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com<mailto:Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>>; ietf <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>; db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>; teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>; Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>>
主题: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tom,
Thanks for pointing out the duplications and conflicts between draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types and draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types. It is planned to solve these duplications and conflicts as follows:
- Keep the basic ODU type definitions in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types;
- Duplications are to be removed from draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types;
- draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types will re-use the types defined in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-type;
- draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types will define extended ODU types;

Regards,
- Xufeng

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:46 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote:
And now it would appear  we have quadruplicate definitions with the
advent of
draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types
which has a comprehensive, and different, set of ODU (upper case) types.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 4:43 PM


> Tarek
>
> You asked about my reference to definitions in triplicate which my
later
> response did not expand on.
>
> The three I was counting were this I-D, exisiting IANA registries
(some
> of
> which are identical to this I-D, some not) and the LSR I-D
> draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
> which contains definitions of switching capability which I see
> overlapping a part of this I-D.  I thought I saw an e-mail from
> Stephane,
> around Christmas, saying he would discuss this with other chairs but
> cannot now find it so perhaps the wish was father to the thought.
>
> The LSR I-D is now in AD review on the LSR list and so may get more
> attention.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tarek Saad" <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>>
> To: "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com<mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com>>; <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>; "Igor
> Bryskin" <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com<mailto:Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>>
> Cc: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>>; <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>;
> <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>; <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 10:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt>
> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
>
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your feedback.
> > I'm attaching Igor's response on this topic -- which I share his
same
> opinion.
> > Please see more comments inline from me [TS]..
> >
> > On 5/15/19, 7:16 AM, "Teas on behalf of tom petch"
> <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of daedulus@btconnect.com<mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     The approach taken by this I-D worries me.
> >
> >     It provides YANG identities for a wide range of values used in
TE,
> such
> >     as encoding types and switching capabilities; so far, so good.
> > [TS]: As mentioned in abstract, the module is not strictly
identities.
> It is a collection of re-usable YANG groupings, types and identities.
> >
> >     These definitions were needed, and were in a large part created
by
> >     RFC3471, in 2003.  When the management of GMPLS was specified,
in
> MIB
> >     modules, these definitions were put under IANA control and they
> remain
> >     there to this day.  They were updated by e.g.. RFC8330 (February
> 2018)
> >     and RFC8363 (May 2018) so these IANA registries are not some
dusty
> old
> >     relic but a current, living specification.
> >
> >     These YANG definitions have much in common with the IANA SMI
> registries
> >     but they are not the same.  A comparison of e.g. switching
> capabilities
> >     suggests that this YANG module is out-of-date compared with the
> IANA SMI
> >     registry (as with RFC8330, RFC8363) and omits several values for
> no
> >     stated reason ( the deprecated 2,3,4, 40 PBB-TE, 151 WSON-LSC).
> > [TS]: it was not the intention to be exhaustive in covering all IANA
> defined entities. However, the objective was to model enough that
would
> make TE feature (modelled in other modules) usable and to leverage the
> power of YANG augmentation for any extensions that may not be covered
in
> a base model. Specifically, the authors favored the use of YANG
> identities over enums to allow for the extensibility of augmentation.
> >
> >     The approach taken by other WG has been to take a IANA registry
> and
> >     provide a parallel YANG module under common IANA control as has
> been
> >     done for e.g. interfaces with both MIB module and YANG module
> being
> >     updated in parallel as appropriate.
> >
> >     Here something seems to have gone wrong.  We have a parallel set
> of
> >     definitions not acknowledging the existing ones and being
> out-of-date
> >     compared with the existing ones.
> >
> >     Furthermore, some of these definitions are duplicated in the
work
> of the
> >     LSR WG giving us (at least) three definitions.
> > [TS]: it would help to point to the duplication or thread that this
> was discussed in. However, we believe that this document covers TE
data
> and hence LSR module(s) would need to eliminate duplication of any TE
> data (if any).. LSR module can always import TE types to use the TE
> definitions.
> >
> >     I raised this issue before Christmas 2018 and was told that the
> chairs
> >     of TEAS and LSR would get together and get back to me.  Nothing
> appears
> >     to have changed.
> >
> >     In passing, IANA has separate SMI registries for e.g.LSP
encoding,
> >     Switching Types and so on, which seems a sound engineering
> approach,
> >     allowing more flexible evolution compared to the 60-page
monolith
> of
> >     this single YANG module.
> > [TS]: In this effort, we've followed similar approach to RFC8294,
> RFC6021. Etc.. Do you see the same concerns there too?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tarek
> >
> >     ...Tom Petch
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org<mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org>>
> >     Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 9:47 PM
> >
> >     > The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering
> >     Architecture and
> >     > Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: -
> 'Traffic
> >     > Engineering Common YANG Types'
> >     >   <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> as Proposed Standard
> >     >
> >     > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> solicits
> >     final
> >     > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
the
> >     > ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org> mailing lists by 2019-05-16. Exceptionally,
> comments may
> >     be
> >     > sent to iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org> instead. In either case, please retain
the
> >     beginning of
> >     > the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >     >
> >     > Abstract
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >    This document defines a collection of common data types and
> >     groupings
> >     >    in YANG data modeling language.  These derived common types
> and
> >     >    groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model
> Traffic
> >     >    Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > The file can be obtained via
> >     >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/
> >     >
> >     > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> >     >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/ballot/
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Teas mailing list
> >     Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> --------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
>