[Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-13 - one week

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the opportunity, Oscar.

 

I always look at idnits. I see that it is warning about a lot of downrefs.
Downrefs aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but there really are a lot here,
and it made me wonder.

So…

*	Does this document really need to be gated by
draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo which is currently only 4th in the queue for WGLC in
PCE?
*	Do we really need normative references to such a long list of
Informational RFCs? 
*	RFC 4115 seems like a *really* bad thing to include as a normative
reference from an IETF standards track RFC given that it is an Independent
Stream publication with a fairly assertive IESG note.
*	RFCs 4125 and 4126 are a bit shaky as normative references. I’m not
sure what the status of the experiments described is. Certainly, no one
thought it worth moving them on to the Standards Track.
*	RFC 4427 is a fine document, and explains a lot of stuff. But I
don’t think it defines any process or protocol behaviour. So does a
normative reference actually give it too much weight? Should we be using the
RFCs that actually define the different recovery protocol behaviours? For
example:
     identity clear {

       base protection-external-commands;

       description

         "An action that clears the active near-end lockout of a

          protection, forced switchover, manual switchover, WTR state,

          or exercise command.";

       reference

         "RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology

                    for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching

                    (GMPLS)";

     }

The term “WTR” or “WTR state” is not found in RFC 4427, although “Wait To
Restore time” is in 4.16. 

On the other hand, “Wait-To-Restore (WTR)” is in 6.1 of RFC 4428 and 6.2 has
“a local Wait-to-Restore (WTR) state”. Mind you, 4428 is also Informational.

RFC 6378 begins to put some behavioural substance behind the concept of a
WTR timer, and the state machine has a WTR State.

*	 

I’m not going to go through all of the references and check them. It is
possible that some downrefs are a good idea (and will need to be called out
in the shepherd write-up and the IETF last call unless they are already in
the downref registry). The authors might want to check carefully.

 

Otherwise, this looks like a solid (if rather large) piece of work. Well
done to the authors!

 

I think that the Security Considerations given here are correct. This is the
equivalent of a family of typedefs. Of themselves, there is no security
risk. It all depends how other YANG modules use them.

 

Cheers,

 

Adrian

 

From: OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 11 October 2024 13:36
To: 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas] Second Working group last call of
draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-13 - one week

 

Dear TEAS WG colleagues,

 

       As a result of the comments during the WG LC of
draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10, the authors made several changes. The
current version is draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-13.

 

      This email starts a second working group last call on
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/. 

 

    As the focus is on the changes from -10 to -13, the duration will be one
week. Hence, the second working group last call ends on October 18th 2024.

 

    Please send your comments to the working group mailing list. To
facilitate the review, please find the diff here: Diff:
draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10.txt -
draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-13.txt
<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10
&url2=draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-13&difftype=--html> 

 

Thank you,

              Oscar 

 

 

  _____  


Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario,
puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización,
divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la
legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que
nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is confidential and
privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete
it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário,
pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo
da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário
indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou
cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente.
Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique
imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição