[Teas] "Addresses" in examples in draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 05 August 2022 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 EF328C182D6D; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXKyK8rdEqjw; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 69133C1907A6; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:13:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 275DDOHg007449; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:13:24 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 536A146050; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:13:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467704604F; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:13:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:13:23 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.93.40.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 275DDMWv016293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:13:22 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang@ietf.org>
Cc: <teas@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 14:13:22 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <10f201d8a8cd$242f47b0$6c8dd710$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: Adioy9Uo2TuY/oMWSSenEqYDa3rKgQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.93.40.1
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-27058.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.155-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.155-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-27058.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--5.155500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: Vag+r/h5ShQOwAmmWH5kBC/T1r68E/jWoWI+j+UNYkutBiS9hFeaTO3D /9aeHv+oY6L0yhBQZhVaosFST81rS080kUWn+OxUngIgpj8eDcC063Wh9WVqgnXA+T8YcZkDtEw Mol+sYkINXwNUB3oA790H8LFZNFG7bkV4e2xSge7xWGAcnEGx1t+kH1Y96z4D4AEMB/n+kqDPIt 3xirU2HFgpWCbva+Mm
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/V7bVEC0eSZZu0yfCeWr1sqwp8Kw>
Subject: [Teas] "Addresses" in examples in draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 13:13:33 -0000

Hi,

Just looking at draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-15 and the example in 7.1

While the abstract-node-id is of type te-node-id and, per RFC 8776, might
not be an actual IP address, the convention seems largely to be to use an
address. So maybe it would be good to stick to the conventions for addresses
in documents (RFC 5737 and
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/)

Similarly, an ltp is of type te-tp-id and, per RFC 8776, is a ling
identifier per RFC 3630 or RFC 5305. Again, this might be an interface
address or a router ID and, while a router ID might not be a routable
address, it would also be good to stick to the conventions for addresses in
documents.

Best,
Adrian