Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 05 October 2018 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 1FA42130E70 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:31:46 -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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 X1TUowSASFbO for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (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 3905A130DD3 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 11:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw10.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.10]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED6541438 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:09:23 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 8UWkg7gU0o6eD8UX9gXoP6; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:09:23 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=5m+V9ZvAZyL+uE3R5SG8KHVbmbwi+P2LdHXkMWxrh8g=; b=fsQ24ZX0frlbR7GHQ7NSx3ZV2Z bIyjopGRendcW/e59V/jKDUbF5m/o6PI/wzO7RcyFCDtlMWxSxB9eotf6JC/cVf0xZmkQ5a6XsI1U A75d7XQNBWMzspKI9sC60DQF+;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.106.211]:35552 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1g8UWa-001Opq-LJ; Fri, 05 Oct 2018 12:08:28 -0600
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>, "draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org" <draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
References: <153729682108.8569.6079760050660778983.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D063DF0@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5d16d8f4-156f-4c6a-5832-08664417aea3@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D064FCE@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <ca58cd92-e0ea-e479-fa0e-71697bd5be20@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D066D05@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <17db4372-f15c-fc8d-601f-0e843ef7b44a@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 14:08:27 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D066D05@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.106.211
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1g8UWa-001Opq-LJ
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.106.211]:35552
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/j7avoteS386hi78N28v1RAVmVH4>
Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
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: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 18:31:46 -0000

Hi Young,


On 10/4/2018 10:29 AM, Leeyoung wrote:
>
> Hi Lou,
>
> I think we can do the augmentation approach.
>
> If we were to augment LxSM models, we have two choices:
>
> ·First choice: To have three separate augmented LxSM models so that 
> each LxSM would augment independently from one another.
>
> ·Second choice: To have one YANG model where three augmentations take 
> place there, which means all three LxSM models are augmented at the 
> same time.
>
> I would think the first choice is what you meant.
>

There's certainly room for identifying what is the best approach . This 
said, I actually don't understand the second choice and unsure if it can 
be legally supported (what does it mean for an implementation to support 
of module that includes an augmentation to a non-supported module? maybe 
it works with deviations?) While not sure about this, it sounds / looks 
like you took the first choice.

Lou

> Thanks.
>
> Young
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 6:05 PM
>
> To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>om>; 
> draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for 
> draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
>
> Young,
>
>     There was one comment on the list other than my question, right? 
> Giuseppe's comment basically says it is provider information, right? 
> So isn't this what NACM is all about, i.e., limiting information based 
> on who is asking for it. So I still am unconvinced that the complexity 
> of a new module yields any benefit.
>
> Just think of it from a transaction processing perspective.  With the 
> proposed approach, a client that wants to understand the mapping has to
>
> (1) read the service module), (2) search the service module for a 
> mapping, and then (3) read the related TE information.  With the 
> augmentation approach (2) is eliminated and during processing (1) it's 
> possible to see if the TE information even exists.  This reduces 
> processing on both clients and servers.
>
> While not a major point, I do think the added complexity should be 
> more strongly justified.
>
> Lou
>
> On 9/25/2018 5:57 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
>
> > Hi Lou,
>
> >
>
> > I think this has been discussed in the mailing list when you asked 
> the opinion on this issue. Please see the attachment.
>
> >
>
> > Please also refer to the IETF 102 slides (in particular page 3) for 
> further information on this model and why the co-authors think it is 
> beneficial to have a separate model than augmenting three separate 
> service models.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > Young
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:32 PM
>
> > To: draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang@ietf.org; teas@ietf.org
>
> > Subject: Re: [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for
>
> > draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
>
> >
>
> > Hi Young/authors,
>
> >
>
> >       Thanks for the update.  I remain a bit confused/concerned that
>
> > this document adds a new standalone model rather than taking the
>
> > simpler approach of just augmenting the existing service/connectivity
>
> > modules with the pointers to the TE/VN/tunnel information (perhaps
>
> > using
>
> > groupings?)
>
> >
>
> > Can you elaborate on your thinking here?
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Lou
>
> >
>
> > On 9/18/2018 2:55 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
>
> >> Hi,
>
> >>
>
> >> The revision is to fix YANG errors caused by the L1CSM YANG update. 
> No content changes.
>
> >>
>
> >> Thanks.
>
> >> Young
>
> >>
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
>
> >> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:54 PM
>
> >> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>om>; Giuseppe
>
> >> Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@telecomitalia.it>it>; Dhruv Dhody
>
> >> <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant@gmail.com>om>; Leeyoung
>
> >> <leeyoung@huawei.com>om>; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
>
> >> Subject: New Version Notification for
>
> >> draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> A new version of I-D, draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
>
> >> has been successfully submitted by Young Lee and posted to the IETF 
> repository.
>
> >>
>
> >> Name: draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang
>
> >> Revision:       11
>
> >> Title:                             Traffic Engineering and Service 
> Mapping Yang Model
>
> >> Document date: 2018-09-18
>
> >> Group: Individual Submission
>
> >> Pages: 22
>
> >> URL: 
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11.txt
>
> >> Status: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang/
>
> >> Htmlized: 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11
>
> >> Htmlized: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang
>
> >> Diff: 
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-11
>
> >>
>
> >> Abstract:
>
> >>      This document provides a YANG data model to map customer service
>
> >>      models (e.g., the L3VPM Service Model) to Traffic Engineering (TE)
>
> >>      models (e.g., the TE Tunnel or the Abstraction and Control of
>
> >>      Traffic Engineered Networks Virtual Network model). This model is
>
> >>      referred to as TE Service Mapping Model and is applicable to the
>
> >>      operator's need for seamless control and management of their VPN
>
> >>      services with TE tunnel support.
>
> >>
>
> >>      The model is principally used to allow monitoring and 
> diagnostics of
>
> >>      the management systems to show how the service requests are mapped
>
> >>      onto underlying network resource and TE models.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
> tools.ietf.org.
>
> >>
>
> >> The IETF Secretariat
>
> >>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> >> 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 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