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>rg>; <teas@ietf.org>rg>;
> <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>rg>; <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>rg>; <teas-chairs@ietf.org>rg>;
> > <teas@ietf.org>rg>; <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)
>
>