Re: [Teas] Some stray thoughts on draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang was ....

["Wubo (lana)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,



Many thanks for your review. Please see inline with [Bo Wu].



Thanks,

Bo Wu



-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 6:45 PM
To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Some stray thoughts on draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang was ....



mmm no it was not me that sent this prematurely, doubtless AI at work:-(

completions (I hope) below



________________________________________

From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Sent: 23 August 2023 11:33



I share Joel's concern - it does seem premature with the undecided or unresolved issues relating to NRP (or whatever name emerges)

[Bo Wu] For the NPR selector , we will include the following references of the drafts to the encapsulation of SRv6 and IPv6 hop-by-hop option:

a)        draft-ietf-spring-sr-for-enhanced-vpn

b)        draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id



Meanwhile, I looked at the YANG



Normative references are required for

6991 -

8294 -

8519 -

8776 -

draft-bestbar-teas-yang-topology-filter



[Bo Wu] Thanks. Will add.



and for whatever contains srv6-types which is not a module I can find in IANA

[Bo Wu] The reference of draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang will be added.



'This draft defines ...'

perhaps 'document'

[Bo Wu] Will update.



The document title is sometimes spelt as a plural but more often in the singular

[Bo Wu] We will clean up the text to go with a plural.



NRP would benefit from a reference where it first appears.

[Bo Wu] OK. Will clarify this.



SLO SLE need expanding on first use

[Bo Wu] Will do per your suggestion.



        WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/> is out of date twice

[Bo Wu] Will fix.



         "RFC XXX: A YANG Data Model for Network Resource Partition"; perhaps

         "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Network Resource Partitions";

[Bo Wu] Thanks. Fixed.



             leaf maximum-bandwidth {

what are the units?

[Bo Wu] Will change to units "bits/second".



         presence "indicates NRP IGP congruent"; I think that congruence needs defining.  If two triangles are congruent, then I know what must be the same, what must be different.  I do not have that understanding for network topology

[Bo Wu] "igp-congruent" indicates the NRP instance use same IGP topology as the "multi-topology-id"and "flex-algo-id"specified. We will clarify this.



         units "bps";

bits or bytes?

[Bo Wu] Will change to units "bits/second".



         "Introduces new network type for NRP topology"; reminds me of a decrepit and rusty sign  on the road near me that announces a new road layout, dating from over a decade ago.

[Bo Wu] We will change to "Indicates the network type of NRP" if this is clearer.



   The following individuals, authors of

   [I-D.bestbar-teas-yang-nrp-policy] and [I-D.wd-teas-nrp-yang],

   contributed to this consolidated document:



Should that also include

draft-wd-teas-vtn-network-yang-00.txt 6jun21 22pp If only to point out another name change in the predecessors?

[Bo Wu] We hope that all the authors and contributors have been acknowledged, considering the data tracker has a history, we did not include all thel historical files.



Tom Petch

(who  will now press send)



________________________________________

From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Sent: 22 August 2023 18:02

To: Joel Halpern; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Subject: Re: [Teas] The TEAS WG has placed draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"



FWIW the adoption call will start once we have all IPR declarations...



On 8/22/2023 12:57 PM, Joel Halpern wrote:

> While this mostly looks like a good start, I am concerned that

> adopting it would presume that we know what the correct representation

> for NRP identification is for the various cases (IPv6, SRv6, and

> MPLS.)  As none of those are as far as I know adopted by the

> respective working groups, it seems premature to adopt that.

>

> It seems to me that we can either adopt this with placeholders for

> identification (indicating that we will work on it later), or defer

> adoption.

>

> Yours,

>

> Joel

>

> On 8/22/2023 8:51 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote:

>> The TEAS WG has placed draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang in state Candidate

>> for WG Adoption (entered by Lou Berger)

>>

>> The document is available at

>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang/

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Teas mailing list

>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

> _______________________________________________

> Teas mailing list

> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas



_______________________________________________

Teas mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas



_______________________________________________

Teas mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas