Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Feedback on options for issue #1 in TE tunnel YANG

Mahesh Jethanandani <> Fri, 22 July 2016 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9A812D5EB; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PrKHpD_l1gRw; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13F212DA99; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fi15so37228517pac.1; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:34:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=ER3yM4XHBQQAa4MWpKSqVYM8jBHb6RS2S4ufRC5qJE8=; b=rnZtXEtzHfe7DkoYwmgt99xIKZ/mrByFJ//raL8MoFKtRLfGLZfyw6YECyI1CeAaI+ GRaBCppsf64fPEsuqa8IlTcpEMkA5hvF4iW3BOC05KEfklvQ6DSIYHFJ4MuHlz0kbb0J AGCoqSFq75ej8/jVTc7LORkf49m5QoDxkH3t0Uth7iX4dp7Avt3uHBFqDK9r/YYZqjs3 2zKIJwWIbU3K7CG/toaeKV05QtfybrcUGldOGYpDRmxZIturc+gcmcKwUkUlizNkUGD5 4WpQrXgN9KtzJLO+i9VdmMnqN7XdtxYrUGYIKAXx1T1Goe7zUZl/5lXio5YH90L2Xag2 vvDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=ER3yM4XHBQQAa4MWpKSqVYM8jBHb6RS2S4ufRC5qJE8=; b=RwPIHDCAFnnHvO3w1xpdu82dBXi6pGxcpvAg0E9sadm40IlzAchyDEaA5EkyxH5Oo1 c4PyF4Lxm/E1lieUPyElMaOL+Q55HRC3kyWtUH9s755DkOL380+QovWhoDUuO2u22leR METr8xpIXx34tAXf4/gC6mFGMFVA5e5W+yT3UUpvpzAiPL6kn/rjDlTG/wvp4/2RAer0 5ecYpPMuLa98Z2HislYfUUslevXtZ+qmhSh36ZrdSifoE18KYQHlzn2JVdVAJPiawtCr 1eVOlJqT7IIiMKYRVxgdYO0ErDkcL32iSb93BSlnlhfppbNuVISc19Iv7pwZT/gwzeIJ xRbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoous+yn0htCqIyG+dvDNKinz5Fj+A9CykcGx6Whx7XL0lmLwKiOr3ZYsJ2/Z4dmYy2Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x10mr3985801pac.92.1469172852870; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id f84sm17308265pfd.87.2016. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_11695F17-BF09-4776-9C27-6170EBF202B5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 09:34:09 +0200
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [yang-doctors] Feedback on options for issue #1 in TE tunnel YANG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:34:15 -0000


I am not sure I understand all the options you are describing, so maybe would need to understand that. I also do not understand the CON in the first option where you talk about leafrefs being error prone.

Assuming there is some minor clarification required, I would think Option 1 would work for you and is something that is used commonly across YANG models.

Anyway, I am around till noon if you want to help me understand the issue.


> On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Tarek Saad (tsaad) <> wrote:
> Hi YANG doctors,
> We have a requirement to reuse generic data across multiple technology model instantiations for model we’re driving in draft-ietf-teas-yang-te. For this, we've identified a number of proposals and tried to summarize them in slides 7-10 in the deck @ <>
> We are seeking your expert advice on the best way of the options to proceed with and whether there’s a precedence in other IETF models that have solved similar issues.
> Regards,
> Tarek (and co-authors)
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list

Mahesh Jethanandani