Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15.txt> (YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies) to Proposed Standard
Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 24 June 2018 20:15 UTC
Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.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 0404A130E67; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 lxJ8xa_W6Uc3; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FEB1130E5B; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id r24-v6so10556799ioh.9; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tqp1cSniuaFm2CnTUsRhhDA8xXlERLCP3A5mC7DoKt4=; b=sBTzL5OS0lDo92yC0/XInGNJNrf9+olytSTRolmUSIfSkedFGKYpKDXzUQG2KfBxAq YA73FY1fFePtleopP9/duU/GgXEIUqYI8dMmFeojeMsilnbrHITvYTTeEyqCZXKq8pO/ TTmt8tIvLAHTCrTUSQtxC8cTZwpsd0Zvq0zMrJ9MYD5mVYG5lVnGoi0pkXH0r+VB5Ov/ fi2vBqWIhJP9WYNggjZlJn6jjOpQGcAwowjCWbdUnr3i86M4BLptpUi4g5iHq6vrx8j0 X/cS/5zqTSpWjy3sV7RRDbqP7GvM1cEhLIaho6tHQSHiq26TZtuVLQPVQJfumBnPNHda SAKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Tqp1cSniuaFm2CnTUsRhhDA8xXlERLCP3A5mC7DoKt4=; b=tA1usIMgsi9qa6JU2ZW719W1Cwz4sSoG2K2cVjvbJwVm+y+OCEHcZ1J9WxbG+BxcxV gg8T5NQv5PjslMOaLngW5ihONfJeof0/0rWFNVUGSiUJzJUu26W4EZBhpM/1j9xaEJsa vRnfezkaa0RHc7EAca24CCnTzbY0sJtfZciDIKa7XWJ+iCpcum8HxV4sk4sg45ekoylR tmlZSjNYiHwrKmQJ46DJv2MlGlYQK09E8UUlG4/4oO1VUxKQxk5MCG8DI5AolFCCjbQK 7B6tf+bpSBSotm8KYyOCL9oGQ3bD21q3r4IHLpMAKltKPcIIXru5ebmvMf15zuaI9mLK wKPQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1rUGWopBHCVepw+DGvLaCglJC1yHKtOrDE7jt9eca1jGPB+kDG h7GBy1CYeWhgfBNWraDPW7irwKhuFrXcS75P67E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJ6/ElNTJOVe0QbqGeDu635iCC/CGvnbo4ApHkJCBSmYLCcp+MCFvp+5fKvEw9ebaCe+W90DS4aGKhz2ZnzOeQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:28c6:: with SMTP id o189-v6mr8059510ioo.149.1529871308676; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a5e:c90e:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2018 13:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <008501d3fd78$99a4e5e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <152648165949.30969.14002611163004300703.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <00fa01d3fcee$db4933a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <008501d3fd78$99a4e5e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 16:15:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPSVp+dCpjQu_eGkupx9QGjm6ockKRT0wkj-6ZVrpAz__Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e7ecc9056f68eb27"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kl5Yua2CbcQGg_g_Cv-6IhwOZ3k>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15.txt> (YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 20:15:12 -0000
Hi Tom, On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:26 AM, tom p. <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote: > Further thoughts on -16 (as my previous comments included below are). > > What is the status of Appendix B? I find this a thorny question. > Appendices are usually regarded as not Normative, with a statement > called for when it is otherwise. This is a YANG module which non-NMDA > servers will implement so that says it is Normative, to me. On the > other hand, the world is going NMDA - I do not know how fast - so this > is more like Historic; or non-Normative? > > I do not know the answer but do know we can expect to see this several > times, so I am thinking that some thought and guidance from an Ops AD > would be valuable. > [Xufeng]: The current format is the result of long, back-and-forth discussions among NETMOD and RGTWG working groups, and related ADs. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/rqrXUqs8YMIfcrKZnSIoH4gA-8M For now, we use this convention, until a new one is agreed on. > > IANA Considerations should have a > reference: RFC XXXX > for each module registered [Xufeng]: Fixed in revision -17. > > Additionally, my comments about the YANG module in the body of the > document apply to Appendix B and C namely > - [RFC ... looks wrong in a YANG module > - import without reference > > Does the YANG module in Appendix C need a Copyright statement? > [Xufeng]: For the example in Appendix C, we currently follow the format from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20, which does not use Copyright statement. > > Should the YANG module in Appendix C be registered? It took a while for > the IETF to see the need to define formally such things as > example.com > so I am thinking it probably should be lest we get many different > varieties in the wild. > > And I would like a Note to the RFC Editor asking them to update the > dates with the date of publication especially since there are five such > dates rather than the usual two. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com> > To: <ietf@ietf.org> > Cc: <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; <teas@ietf.org>; > <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>; <db3546@att.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 6:01 PM > > > > Lou et al > > > > I note that the YANG module in this I-D has Reference statements to 20 > > other RFC, which is good, but only one of the twenty appear in the > > References for the I-D, which I think is not good, and needs to be > > fixed. > > > > Also, some of the RFC which appear in Reference clauses of the YANG > > module appear in [square brackets] e.g. [RFC6001] which I think should > > not be there. > > > > In the same vein, there are imports of four other YANG modules but no > > indication as to which RFC they can be found in - again, I think that > > that needs fixing with a Reference statement. > > > > A quick pass suggests the missing references are to > > 1195 missing > > 3209 missing > > 3272 missing > > 3471 missing > > 3630 missing > > 3785 missing > > 4201 4202 4203 4206 all missing > > 4872 missing > > 5152 missing > > 5212 missing > > 5305 missing > > 6001 missing > > 6241 ok Norm > > 7471 missing > > 7752 missing > > 7579 missing > > > > Russ's comment about Section 1.1 does not seem to have been addressed. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> > > To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org> > > Cc: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>; <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; > > <teas@ietf.org>; <db3546@att.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:40 PM > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering > > Architecture and > > > Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'YANG Data > > Model > > > for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies' > > > <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15.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 2018-05-30. 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 YANG data model for representing, > > retrieving > > > and manipulating Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies. The model > > > serves as a base model that other technology specific TE Topology > > > models can augment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/ > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/ballot/ > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > The document contains these normative downward references. > > > See RFC 3967 for additional information: > > > rfc5212: Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-Region and > Multi-Layer > > Networks (MRN/MLN) (Informational - IETF stream) > >
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-to… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-to… tom p.
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-to… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-to… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-to… tom p.
- [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-1… The IESG
- Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-to… tom p.