Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 15:46 UTC
Return-Path: <ietfa@btconnect.com>
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 82F5C1200A4; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.733
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, RATWARE_MS_HASH=2.148, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 nc4e9G0e2pkC; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur02on0714.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe06::714]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9DAE120058; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 08:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=qcRnd7JbBZ62RHjg/prI93v++oLy3sKRotiRD//KRkY=; b=jXSf8EJlYhCtIhegyzBHiFe5rCF+sGQavuThePVp8nwrwI3U3/fE4XaUGiv5dTxajeKeYejw6QqBBnYp4joBerzXf1jLXGFZ0SAY1UhxOjgrOBPVJLIJqm47m3b+YMxJjCB8yRjhFPhTZONyg/rZnAfR+Dx3EcnO/ATVdTYh/pc=
Received: from DB7PR07MB5893.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.177.194.220) by DB7PR07MB5980.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.106.225) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.8; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:46:35 +0000
Received: from DB7PR07MB5893.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::88bf:ced4:d9c0:bca4]) by DB7PR07MB5893.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::88bf:ced4:d9c0:bca4%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2008.002; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:46:35 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
To: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>, "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "db3546@att.com" <db3546@att.com>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHVITYDbdIAH+mi2UGL51LY4hprow==
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:46:35 +0000
Message-ID: <01c101d52135$6791f660$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: LO2P265CA0241.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:600:8a::13) To DB7PR07MB5893.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:2b::28)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfa@btconnect.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
x-originating-ip: [86.139.215.234]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b51135aa-e7da-49ea-ecea-08d6ef4d262c
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DB7PR07MB5980;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB7PR07MB5980:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB7PR07MB59800943D4A0AE1EB44315E7A2EC0@DB7PR07MB5980.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0066D63CE6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(376002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(53824002)(84392002)(54906003)(86362001)(81686011)(4720700003)(110136005)(316002)(6246003)(99286004)(966005)(14454004)(1556002)(25786009)(52116002)(186003)(14496001)(26005)(102836004)(81816011)(4326008)(6506007)(386003)(478600001)(9686003)(476003)(71190400001)(6436002)(81156014)(5660300002)(53936002)(8676002)(6512007)(66946007)(6306002)(66476007)(71200400001)(66446008)(64756008)(66556008)(229853002)(68736007)(61296003)(305945005)(66066001)(50226002)(7736002)(3846002)(8936002)(44736005)(6486002)(81166006)(2906002)(6116002)(44716002)(62236002)(5024004)(256004)(486006)(14444005)(73956011)(111480200001)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB7PR07MB5980; H:DB7PR07MB5893.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Y24oB4m8GSZx9JO7dSpgYrOxsaApQJxcRbaVm6yB+3NMmVFE1SRmFT7b3sVZYuHq6cz9o9kQaHdvRArhkLaTPX4gtcRht4sAUPzUeb5ptPv0GwGpM8bOzuoOFYQtBtBSGFNkG2f0IFYnueWqqv3Zea4N9PorccLdnjY6DP5XkGLqj/1WhoZLIkyq8C8U0D/fFiw8vTwVTO206i0QjuSKGVp+Z/WaNHlo4ADgEC7+EBloaPU4AsAHmfEWgZkX60icdqeUdsbjciod99SKOl9drXIQ1cXurCXjezjIQnM0hQ93Dd3BhZIQzw4baYKXNWTkRo4pYcP6XyK/SwiVLDZ0EEBc96r3hI70vqTjbI7G/HUU6WtLRYMyg65M1MuUlP12Ez6Z+clTmXskdvLH772Gu/GWpzmBD3F+yGNe2eLF19E=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <39ACAD55410ADB4F9BA42F9D7B3CFD19@eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b51135aa-e7da-49ea-ecea-08d6ef4d262c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Jun 2019 15:46:35.5050 (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: ietfa@btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR07MB5980
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/i_v3HowRfshUeWy5o6mmGDkNtJw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:46:43 -0000
And now it would appear we have quadruplicate definitions with the advent of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types which has a comprehensive, and different, set of ODU (upper case) types. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2019 4:43 PM > Tarek > > You asked about my reference to definitions in triplicate which my later > response did not expand on. > > The three I was counting were this I-D, exisiting IANA registries (some > of > which are identical to this I-D, some not) and the LSR I-D > draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg > which contains definitions of switching capability which I see > overlapping a part of this I-D. I thought I saw an e-mail from > Stephane, > around Christmas, saying he would discuss this with other chairs but > cannot now find it so perhaps the wish was father to the thought. > > The LSR I-D is now in AD review on the LSR list and so may get more > attention. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tarek Saad" <tsaad.net@gmail.com> > To: "tom petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com>; <ietf@ietf.org>; "Igor > Bryskin" <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com> > Cc: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types@ietf.org>; <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; > <teas@ietf.org>; <db3546@att.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 10:13 PM > Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> > (Traffic Engineering Common YANG Types) to Proposed Standard > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Thanks for sharing your feedback. > > I'm attaching Igor's response on this topic -- which I share his same > opinion. > > Please see more comments inline from me [TS].. > > > > On 5/15/19, 7:16 AM, "Teas on behalf of tom petch" > <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote: > > > > The approach taken by this I-D worries me. > > > > It provides YANG identities for a wide range of values used in TE, > such > > as encoding types and switching capabilities; so far, so good. > > [TS]: As mentioned in abstract, the module is not strictly identities. > It is a collection of re-usable YANG groupings, types and identities. > > > > These definitions were needed, and were in a large part created by > > RFC3471, in 2003. When the management of GMPLS was specified, in > MIB > > modules, these definitions were put under IANA control and they > remain > > there to this day. They were updated by e.g. RFC8330 (February > 2018) > > and RFC8363 (May 2018) so these IANA registries are not some dusty > old > > relic but a current, living specification. > > > > These YANG definitions have much in common with the IANA SMI > registries > > but they are not the same. A comparison of e.g. switching > capabilities > > suggests that this YANG module is out-of-date compared with the > IANA SMI > > registry (as with RFC8330, RFC8363) and omits several values for > no > > stated reason ( the deprecated 2,3,4, 40 PBB-TE, 151 WSON-LSC). > > [TS]: it was not the intention to be exhaustive in covering all IANA > defined entities. However, the objective was to model enough that would > make TE feature (modelled in other modules) usable and to leverage the > power of YANG augmentation for any extensions that may not be covered in > a base model. Specifically, the authors favored the use of YANG > identities over enums to allow for the extensibility of augmentation. > > > > The approach taken by other WG has been to take a IANA registry > and > > provide a parallel YANG module under common IANA control as has > been > > done for e.g. interfaces with both MIB module and YANG module > being > > updated in parallel as appropriate. > > > > Here something seems to have gone wrong. We have a parallel set > of > > definitions not acknowledging the existing ones and being > out-of-date > > compared with the existing ones. > > > > Furthermore, some of these definitions are duplicated in the work > of the > > LSR WG giving us (at least) three definitions. > > [TS]: it would help to point to the duplication or thread that this > was discussed in. However, we believe that this document covers TE data > and hence LSR module(s) would need to eliminate duplication of any TE > data (if any).. LSR module can always import TE types to use the TE > definitions. > > > > I raised this issue before Christmas 2018 and was told that the > chairs > > of TEAS and LSR would get together and get back to me. Nothing > appears > > to have changed. > > > > In passing, IANA has separate SMI registries for e.g.LSP encoding, > > Switching Types and so on, which seems a sound engineering > approach, > > allowing more flexible evolution compared to the 60-page monolith > of > > this single YANG module. > > [TS]: In this effort, we've followed similar approach to RFC8294, > RFC6021. Etc.. Do you see the same concerns there too? > > > > Regards, > > Tarek > > > > ..Tom Petch > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> > > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 9:47 PM > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering > > Architecture and > > > Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - > 'Traffic > > > Engineering Common YANG Types' > > > <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-09.txt> as Proposed Standard > > > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > solicits > > final > > > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-05-16. Exceptionally, > comments may > > be > > > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > > beginning of > > > the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > > > > This document defines a collection of common data types and > > groupings > > > in YANG data modeling language. These derived common types > and > > > groupings are intended to be imported by modules that model > Traffic > > > Engineering (TE) configuration and state capabilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/ > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/ballot/ > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Teas mailing list > > Teas@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > -------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Teas mailing list > > Teas@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas > > >
- [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-… The IESG
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- [Teas] 答复: Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Xufeng Liu
- [Teas] 答复: Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical Technology Research Dept)
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-ty… Tarek Saad