From nobody Wed Mar 24 05:33:06 2021 Return-Path: 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 37BE13A2C12 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 05:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, 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=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 KM2ifFexoRND for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 05:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EUR05-VI1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-vi1eur05on2122.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.21.122]) (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 5E4BE3A2C15 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 05:32:59 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=RMdbgmRAbvzwIC7Ie0DgJ3MibgzsD9+/bGVDT/S9dsMU15PE8dbQCbDPQb06DK/FCTwJrqhVTNYUJFfP7NmBS9T8i4ei6lx3CnWMSgWSDoAVqRN7XxRvMe4XPoJ16qSoTuQHyZeDsTZTqksDhcsDLWOKZwy7obQolipudOCAbFR3wHBXjHZDRNkvJWn8V1TMgI1KE18Xz6esFXSfRQW0vYxD1yCdn10pZ1KmrPgdH8xqFNyrfRunkI3ER244jJuaWtzknWaQsfwEpLtRkGZi5dRHbq+JMvF5COmPlZVTnXa4/vhyKY9lkkrCtMG9pOlbYbuvp1jwyoHyEUjVN3eHDg== 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=b/UHq5nBfSlMzHdgqV73qSVK4xvzZGZviAyg7sQpigc=; b=hhgu/EeR/HiSEc2x0rE/GM4aCaVPZhs6LR5X7YbsHMshXRrDtiaTYPo/ZQUFfh51ZgN07AxJlubrXJbL58Xopw5Hk68m2VhaYfxmv0cjAi9VdP1ua0hURKfNWc7Ipa5h8+BY7hCahtDNmuqXUKWrL8JBhy5Fdg9V+j/qNkY01eYJwp5wQlCDZON3aweeXu6wDQ8L2jDciPQAM2+2ea1BSySbWtkgoxE01um+srAJVPZylLprEhw61BpS9Hj5ld0QULjSu/S+Uyy37ZswsbXlRkFwORm2waNnbq6l4lWmjJYuxfB6zLy7Vn/5c2DKFhTCjjS4eHUY2ywWaw5WRi9ojA== 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=b/UHq5nBfSlMzHdgqV73qSVK4xvzZGZviAyg7sQpigc=; b=YJib5WQtK98isZ8cSxKQ8YJ7KIeoQkAMXSaNzDUlbFvlrNznq7Rgk7raef5qzqLd9DGwlREtupETNe9yOx3FnoK/vTuo5dI1TfxVV5Q67IUPkMkKrHabo7duOrni3tIaiNQx75rhL3e2HaeqCCq6HncF/Uc185sS+OAdnN0++3Q= Received: from DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:73::23) by DB9PR07MB7963.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:26f::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3977.9; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:32:56 +0000 Received: from DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5d9:cd75:1ebc:a236]) by DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e5d9:cd75:1ebc:a236%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3977.025; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:32:56 +0000 From: tom petch To: Xufeng Liu CC: TEAS WG Thread-Topic: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo Thread-Index: AQHWGBjZqBIQHbOU4kWdbmKNe1eMVKiTGetTgAiwUYCAAkI8PYBoB1qAgAFg5L+Ay32UgIAHKRA+gI9P54CAK7NB4Q== Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:32:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=btconnect.com; x-originating-ip: [86.146.121.140] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7fa881eb-a247-463d-a29c-08d8eec0f3d0 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB9PR07MB7963: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:5516; 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:DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(136003)(396003)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(15650500001)(6506007)(53546011)(83380400001)(38100700001)(71200400001)(33656002)(4326008)(7696005)(8676002)(2906002)(86362001)(6916009)(316002)(66946007)(52536014)(5660300002)(9686003)(26005)(8936002)(55016002)(966005)(64756008)(76116006)(91956017)(478600001)(66476007)(66556008)(186003)(66446008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?Windows-1252?Q?qboeudIKneLcPaNdwrA6nqbUTRA0sS4gzWTPNu8P2/S43Ct/LuyL5brY?= =?Windows-1252?Q?MKhUy358KT3g/k/rjpVgVcqCmtO8A4hFC14jUhn7NPakDz9aY2w4FqZp?= =?Windows-1252?Q?VoRMerdaAxe/qnNm+TLEQSmow02r5ueRYm8zXdPzD18hQw18J7y5bC6i?= =?Windows-1252?Q?tu7zmrimtoz9VD3H3V/YPqOGffMusXN3eNcWMuAMMcEKO742c4PoniYh?= =?Windows-1252?Q?0wBr6FyjvfxFEOEF9mi9IjD+gSIbgcwrxtKt+dYn2c9JRXGX9gWxyny1?= =?Windows-1252?Q?NQF4DDrJtJkuGYi9aKOPakVwFZHCP9Mj74lfUg20IjhyTXEla49PbHO5?= =?Windows-1252?Q?zpbItzkW7/RcP31Hq97w7S/xXsY9ulHK6FInKUnXpOuxyG2v4F18RFN7?= =?Windows-1252?Q?Ce90w5jAeW9+5KVrrZL+gRx+BM3pHCnCMGABLaTMY1+V4PmnS35J1WND?= =?Windows-1252?Q?a5PfIpsVic2qKcUdHp6Y6KnxQKk79Q7S1sPk2b7W4XqwCPrcOML7JBUQ?= =?Windows-1252?Q?iLjJt7Mywi5bYYulHuzjSZAExSvg67ufc/+VTnaGEwK5slzjSHMNgK8J?= =?Windows-1252?Q?Sggz9p5Vq/2nDHoJxaxDBC7FSg3t9M4WihSPMgM+fLSG6drIzd2A0tFW?= =?Windows-1252?Q?XOvh/OcJCP/qqnX0jY9g2cjth32YiE+bJcUybIPJugqxn4+emaov2+iE?= =?Windows-1252?Q?4mG4GznYrEJI6I0S9uFSiONQRnhmj3Xy83os4YwlmmabpRlvxP/9z1yR?= =?Windows-1252?Q?dwE394eC0bILwwHuCBLUwrQSbI+mhVlVm4pQRf3XvsQRofZ2wr9OMktu?= =?Windows-1252?Q?LHOcsQLUIMpUbPWdFfOuGcZeR+rrg2gqh/q75gpp1czqfCgQ9ZDQaLQ4?= =?Windows-1252?Q?0EMSe7jESt9gZQ2Q70R/53KvwEpfublIPy1aLvCJ8n9TBeFCJPddrsOv?= =?Windows-1252?Q?uTWhQa6QKW+H1pmvXp7Bp5t9S2eNuKox5TNd8yiS5Gfyhx0U8pnVLVC+?= =?Windows-1252?Q?3FCbewiUtrMapaRAOiO3FnEjouaStKaZYQGcviVB7TBvNrFBfGrkSowv?= =?Windows-1252?Q?VyIwwDWZzH85p/Z4GxOnUpKf/luaJfPZUYq4l3W5bMKqyzNi6elq4p6p?= =?Windows-1252?Q?5t6o9KsdvAz3clm4rKT5UpBmJV+zkmN8qjDULpPXIQqliR5mHfO00Rfa?= =?Windows-1252?Q?GV5DpudknlIfVJ6g8xpxPco+Eq71h2lYCANk9SEFu0Dq2iTqDqn2RpoH?= =?Windows-1252?Q?euoLRpXhC1qEST7lFnqyf5YxOudqIlI3BejTKfV80YtHPqRU5NAeRPNP?= =?Windows-1252?Q?SViDoCQ5LHb77hHDrDgsXW3IV3W33FaVKi5GGwEvblt7JbyUPiKX1347?= =?Windows-1252?Q?S4KRZNasDp5BRl6ANB9k8tcxp4oqlINVZVM=3D?= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DB7PR07MB5546.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7fa881eb-a247-463d-a29c-08d8eec0f3d0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Mar 2021 12:32:56.3374 (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: KY5iyuGA+CupYC9IYLh0tzNdipLp3/oeeq7Sn7CqQxwQQFGcEe8wr8ArF2ywG5+UxceMzF3Fp3lySfYD2eaU8A== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB9PR07MB7963 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:33:04 -0000 From: Xufeng Liu =0A= Sent: 24 February 2021 16:54=0A= =0A= Hi Tom,=0A= =0A= Thanks for the additional thoughts. We have posted an updated version https= ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-10, which hopefully = addresses these comments.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= I like the division of the YANG tree into sections, so much easier to see w= hat is what. Others should do likewise!=0A= =0A= You still have out-of-date references to two I-D that are now RFC, te-types= and te-topo; I see seven references but might have missed some.=0A= =0A= Part of the packet statistics I cannot get my mind around but need to sleep= on it and try again.=0A= =0A= Tom Petch=0A= =0A= Best,=0A= - Xufeng=0A= =0A= On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 7:37 AM tom petch > wrote:=0A= From: Xufeng Liu >=0A= Sent: 20 November 2020 23:02=0A= =0A= Hi Tom,=0A= Thank you much for your further comments. We have posted https://datatracke= r.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-09, hoping to address s= ome of your comments below.=0A= =0A= =0A= I have had a second go at -09 and have some more thoughts.=0A= =0A= Figure 3 I like, especially as you have achieved it in ASCII.=0A= =0A= s.2.2.3=0A= Can a termination point be reference with tp-id or do you have to use node+= link as here?=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: tp-id is unique within a node, a node-ref is unique within a netw= ork (i.e. topology), so we have to use the tuple {tip-id, node-ref, network= -id} to uniquely identify a tp-id.=0A= =0A= s.2 talks of two YANG modules when there are four; ok two are PSC but I thi= nk that that might be spelt out here in this section.=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Added a paragraph.=0A= =0A= congruent is 'with' something not 'to' something, I believe=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Changed.=0A= =0A= between the one modeling element in the layer 3 unicast topology /to/and/= =0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Fixed.=0A= =0A= This YANG data model /allows/supports/ both cases.=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Fixed.=0A= =0A= associated /to/with/ the objects in one /corresponding/corresponding=0A= [corresponding is what adulterers do!]=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Fixed.=0A= =0A= Tom Petch=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Thanks,=0A= - Xufeng=0A= =0A= On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:34 AM tom petch >> wr= ote:=0A= From: Xufeng Liu >>=0A= Sent: 13 July 2020 15:29=0A= =0A= Hi Tom,=0A= =0A= Thanks for further reviewing. We have posted an updated version https://dat= atracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-08. Some rewordi= ng has been made, with the hope of making the document more comprehensible.= Please let us know for anything that is still confusing (for such an uncon= ventional modeling approach).=0A= =0A= =0A= I still find some of the terminology in this a challenge.=0A= =0A= 2.1 o The multiplicity of such an association is: 0..1 to 0..1.=0A= the following sentence suggests it is '1 to 0..1'=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: The next sentence describes the relation on an object, but such a= description is relevant only if such an object exists. When such an object= has not been created in the ietf-l3-te-topology, the corresponding layer 3= TE topology may already contain an object that can be potentially associat= ed with the to-be-created object. In this case, 0 in ietf-l3-te-topology, a= nd 1 in ietf-te-topology. Therefore, I=92d say that multiplicity is still 0= ..1 to 0..1.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= 'associated to the objects in a coresponding TE topology'=0A= 'a' suggests there can be more than one which the YANG does not seem to=0A= and 2.2.1 has 'the' not 'a'=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Changed =91a=92 to =91one=92, hoping that =93associated to the ob= jects in one corresponding TE topology" would avoid the possibility of =93m= ore than one=94.=0A= =0A= in passing 'associated with' and 'corresponding'=0A= =0A= ' Since ietf-te-topology augments ietf-network-topology defined in=0A= [RFC8345] [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo], the referenced leaf=0A= /nw:networks/network/network-id identifies an instance of TE topology=0A= by inheritance. '=0A= No and no! ietf-network-topology is in one document so there should be=0A= only one reference or else the module name is wrong or ....=0A= And the referenced leaf does not identify an instance of TE Topology -=0A= it identifies a network of any type. As the next sentence makes clear,=0A= this module has to ensure it is of the correct type and does so.=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Reworded the section, trying to clarify the leafref relationship.= Please let us know if it is better.=0A= =0A= ' If the TE topology is congruent to the layer 3 unicast topology, the=0A= above reference can still be used to specified TE parameters defined=0A= in the TE topology model.=0A= I do not understand. What parameters? I do not see any and if they were=0A= to be defined in TE Topology then they should not be specified here or=0A= anywhere else.=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: One example of the TE parameters is te-delay-metric. Such paramet= ers are defined in the TE Topology model. They are not specified in l3-te-t= opology, but they can be configured in the corresponding te-topology instan= ce.=0A= =0A= =0A= s.2.2.2=0A= 'a node in the layer 3 TE topology may have a reference to the=0A= corresponding TE node.'=0A= perhaps clearer as=0A= 'a node in the layer 3 TE topology may have a reference to the=0A= corresponding node in the TE Topology.'=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Yes. Reworded as suggested.=0A= =0A= s.2.2.3 s.2.2.4 ditto mutatis mutandi=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Fixed too.=0A= =0A= More technically this I-D seems confused about prefix and inconsistent=0A= elsewhere=0A= .=0A= module=0A= namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3-te-topology";=0A= prefix "l3tet";=0A= IANA=0A= name: ietf-l3-te-topology=0A= namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3-te-topology=0A= prefix: l3te=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Fixed the IANA section.=0A= =0A= YANG=0A= container l3-te {=0A= presence "Indicates L3 TE Topology";=0A= =0A= augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types=0A= /l3t:l3-unicast-topology:=0A= +--rw l3-te!=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Is there anything wrong here? l3-te is the name of a container an= d is not the prefix.=0A= =0A= In passing, 'congruent with' in many places (at least in English=0A= English)=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Is it not correct? Or =93congruent to=94 is preferred? Did a brie= f search, it seems that =93congruent with=94 is more popular.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= s.3=0A= The YANG data model defined in this document ...=0A= This document specifies two YANG modules ..=0A= actually three!=0A= =0A= [Xufeng]: Is the above paragraph in Sec 2: =93Modeling Considerations for L= 3 TE Topologies=94? If so, the the description is intended to be scoped to = Sec 2. We have two modules for L3 TE Topologies, and the other two modules = are for Packet Switching Technology Extensions.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Tom Petch=0A= =0A= =0A= Best regards,=0A= - Xufeng=0A= =0A= On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:06 AM tom petch >>>> wrote:=0A= From: Xufeng Liu >>>>=0A= Sent: 07 May 2020 00:22=0A= =0A= Hi Tom,=0A= =0A= Thanks for reviewing and sorry about the errors. We have posted an updated = version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-07, to = fix the errors about the augmentation description and to rephrase a couple = of sections to explain the relations between the related models and their o= bjects. Please let us know for anything that is not clear enough.=0A= =0A= =0A= Thanks for the update. I now find s.2 s.2.1 clear but still struggle there= after. When you use layer 3 topology I find it ambiguous. Is it layer 3 u= nicast topology or layer 3 te topology? Thus in s.2.2.1=0A= "When TE is enabled on a layer 3 topology .. " implies unicast=0A= "congruent to the layer 3 topology .."=0A= implies unicast=0A= " the layer 3 topology will have a reference.."=0A= ah, no, must be layer 3 te topology=0A= and this is the case throughout the rest of s.2. I would like to see those= references to layer 3 topology clarified, unicast or te. You may want to = say that layer 3 topology means ... while layer 3 ... topology will be spel= t out in full or some such, I am easy, but do think that you need to use tw= o distinct terms.=0A= [Xufeng]: Reworded. Please let us know if anything is confusing.=0A= =0A= As you may infer, I like to work top down, start with Abstract, then Introd= uction, then s.2 s.3 making sense of them before seeing if the module does = what these sections say, so when I get stuck in s.2, I do not make it to de= tails of the YANG module.=0A= [Xufeng]: Thank you much for looking at it. We are striving to get your rev= iew unstuck.=0A= =0A= Tom Petch=0A= =0A= Thanks,=0A= - Xufeng=0A= =0A= On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:56 AM tom petch >>>>>>>> wrote:=0A= From: Teas >>>>>>>> on behalf of Xufeng Liu >>>>= >>>>=0A= Sent: 21 April 2020 21:09=0A= =0A= =0A= Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo=0A= =0A= Current Status:=0A= =0A= * The updated revision -06 was posted on March 8, 2020:=0A= - Editorial changes.=0A= * Corordinated with ietf-eth-te-topology and ietf-te-mpls-tp-topo=0A= for the augmentation of ietf-te-topology=0A= - ietf-te-topology does not need to be changed.=0A= * Answered YANG doctor's review comments.=0A= =0A= Open Issues:=0A= =0A= * None.=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= I started to review this and have given up, I cannot make sense of sectio= n 2, which I see as fundamental to understanding the I-D.=0A= Thus=0A= The YANG modulues ietf-l3-te-topology ...=0A= These two modules augment ietf-l3-te topology=0A= No they don't! This augments=0A= ietf-l3-unicast-topology=0A= which is quite different and I find this confusion elsewhere in section two= . Thus=0A= Relationship between Layer 3 Topology and TE Topology=0A= Is that Layer 3 TE Topology or ietf-network-topology? I think that many if= not most references to TE Topology are ambiguous and need clarifying - is= the reference to Layer 3 TE Topology to ietf-network-topology?=0A= =0A= Some of the words are quirky and this website is determined not to let me p= ut them into an e-mail but here goes.=0A= =0A= modulues=0A= topoology=0A= moducment=0A= Local ink=0A= =0A= Tom Petch=0A= Next Steps:=0A= =0A= =0A= * Update the model to sync with the referenced models like draft-ietf-te= as-yang-te-types if there are any changes.=0A= * Welcome further reviews and suggestions.=0A= * Working Group Last Call after completing the above.=0A= =0A= Thanks,=0A= - Xufeng=0A=