Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-29
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 10 April 2022 21:35 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 1DEEB3A10F9; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 14:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 iEx7f18p04PU; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 14:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 ACC513A10F7; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 14:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 23ALZa0w003871; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:35:36 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57DE04604B; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:35:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3830446048; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:35:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:35:36 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (205.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.205] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 23ALZWBZ009907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:35:35 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <409bd958-008c-76df-1692-221ab8dfbab0@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <409bd958-008c-76df-1692-221ab8dfbab0@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:35:30 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <06c501d84d22$e975ade0$bc6109a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHvSVN9onMQ0gC94Mob8o440099M6y7spCQ
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.205
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1000-26826.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--19.287-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--19.287-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1000-26826.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--19.287300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 8HTFlOrbAtFfsB4HYR80ZnFPUrVDm6jtiRPU6vvejXJLWMri+QqmsRkh ChIO6vg8tQsQjGYTOpEXB7/m9NWCpsVQ1jrs5s2SDZs/KgmqdktVT6E5bctBl7KeTtOdjMy64UN u72UO8wSR+V2SZ7/fwv2T8UEMCCmo0gZVx4P67GsD2WXLXdz+AciU8vWcAqwja+UZv7bg1pnovg fcZYFfbZa2pmraNSnSI12dXCHShU99fAV/X56BBU5GBIYERk6jpWOBfK9L1z8TMFL8shgf9493W UsgC0Xie0wUcH160FTDcuzAdMciB+/i00nUfc4wh4Ce12gzEFqyTrWV4vwyX3l7KG7hOkirEpMY 0o/BrKeU0t+nlh8eLPM/sBz6XtfgNlmVGiUldodjLoC0DLthl4PL5Pgu788eNt6WcF1WrccpRdC Fgw1bqnpDAhULVBHpa0X2xO3NpFE/lcuYMIHMbZK9FvwQx1hFtGonEOW5g+a7eAQGlC8AFWerNI O04JfgCp3F54Hs5wu8A/3NddM/cf+tuWXZk8lI4yhsfWHTXOLFmmMdIwjrDqpJJeOmt6X/P/bUD B8FrMRFcCa6S6Ln4Ai7Guh3lW/nCO3iXlOYXp8XCihJ642djki8rgutezVp5fdCVQd48gqSkgv7 lIaKbv0XmCkH/xNSv1GvEW1fSUD7c6rF7t2uukNF5tKVli5KamKrgqy61cJWCQv16moG8RXzf2w lxsnfD+Gk9XRs2AFIdTwQHFGkBKncpeAVoma+xrDvUMltogRtGams9PgywuYs+pHIx1nj2zyDP4 XJBPtpO0vcZvB8hyb0t3KFSKHqpqkyifVqrVyeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCii7lXaIcF/Ww7M6dy uYKg46HM5rqDwqtlExlQIQeRG0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kmCJ_7Dhfze4s6o2FNGgkhdyWtA>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-29
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: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:35:49 -0000
Hi, I have reviewed this draft as it goes through WG last call. I think there are a few nits to resolve before this is ready for publication. Cheers, Adrian === I think Xufeng has changed affiliation --- 1. s/describes YANG data model/describes a YANG data model/ --- 1. The document describes a high-level relationship between the modules defined in this document, as well as other external protocol YANG modules. I think it would be nice to introduce (in this section, and before this paragraph) the modules defined in this document. --- 1. The model covers data applicable to generic or device-independent, device- specific, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) technology specific. Something wrong with this sentence. Maybe... The model includes data that is generic, device-independent, device-specific, and specific to Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) technology. --- Throughout the document. It isn't necessary to represent "optional plural(s)". In English, the plural includes the singular so you can write (for example) "it is expected other YANG module that model TE signaling protocols" --- The section headings in Section 2 seem mixed up. I think you need... 2. Terms and Conventions 2.1. Requirements Language 2.2. Terminology 2.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names 2.4. Model Tree Diagrams --- 3. You begin with "This document describes a generic TE YANG data model that is independent of any dataplane technology." I feel that this point is quite important and is missing from the Abstract and the Introduction. --- 3. s/signaling protocol/signaling protocols/ s/respect data organization/respect to data organization/ --- 3. I don't know what this means: "can be used to model data off a device" Is your point that this is not just for reading or writing information from/to a device, but is also to allow a third party to hold a representation of the modeled entity? If so, great, but I think you have only discovered the whole point of data modeling. If you mean something else, it is not clear. --- 3. The device-specific TE data is defined in module 'ietf-te-device' as shown in Figure 1, Do you mean Figure 1? Doesn't seem like the right figure. Should end with a period not a comma. --- 3. Aren't bullets 2 and 4 saying the same thing? --- 4. The support of extended or vendor specific TE feature(s) is expected to be in either augmentations, or deviations to the model defined in this document. s/be in either/either be in/ However, the text is ambiguous because it could be read to mean that this document defines augmentations or deviations. --- 4.1 s/The TE data model/The TE data models/ (twice) s/in a separate YANG module(s)/in separate YANG modules/ --- 4.1 defined in another document Missing a citation --- In Figure 1, is the text "o: augment" intended to be specific to the one relationship it appears next to, or is it a general key explaining the meaning of the "o" symbol. I think you could tidy up Figure 1 as TE generic +---------+ module | ietf-te |o-------------+ +---------+ \ o \ |\ \ | \ TE device module \ | +----------------+ \ | | ietf-te-device | \ | +----------------+ \ | o o \ | / \ \ | / \ \ RSVP-TE +--------------+ +---------------+ module | ietf-rsvp-te |o | ietf-te-mpls^ | +--------------+ \ +---------------+ | \ MPLS-TE module | \ | \ | \ | \ o +-------------------+ RSVP +-----------+ | ietf-rsvp-otn-te^ | module | ietf-rsvp | +-------------------+ +-----------+ Module for OTN extensions to RSVP-TE X---oY indicates that module X augments module Y ^ indicates a module defined in another document --- 5. The generic TE YANG module ('ietf-te') is meant to manage and operate a TE network. Ah, but does it succeed? Possibly... The generic TE YANG module ('ietf-te') is meant for management and operation of a TE network. --- 5. This includes creating, modifying and retrieving TE Tunnels, LSPs, and interfaces and their associated attributes (e.g. Administrative-Groups, SRLGs, etc.). I don't think you retried Tunnels, LSPs, etc. Just information about them. --- 5. The detailed tree structure is provided in Figure 2. Not a lot of detail in Figure 2. Did you mean a different figure? --- Section 5.1 is all a bit jumbled and would be a lot better as... 5.1. Module Structure The 'te' container is the top-level container in the 'ietf-te' module. The presence of the 'te' container enables TE function system wide. There are three further containers grouped under the 'te' container as shown in Figure 2 and described below. globals: The 'globals' container maintains the set of global TE attributes that can be applied to TE Tunnels and interfaces. tunnels: The 'tunnels' container includes the list of TE Tunnels that are instantiated. Refer to Section 5.1.2 for further details on the properties of a TE Tunnel. lsps: The 'lsps' container includes the list of TE LSPs that are instantiated for TE Tunnels. Refer to Section 5.1.3 for further details of the properties of a TE LSP. The model also contains two Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) as shown in Figure 2 and described below. tunnels-path-compute: An RPC to request path computation for a specific TE Tunnel. The RPC allows requesting path computation using atomic and stateless operation. A tunnel may also be configured in 'compute-only' mode to provide stateful path updates - see Section 5.1.2 for further details. tunnels-action: An RPC to request a specific action (e.g. reoptimize, or tear-and- setup) to be taken on a specific tunnel or all tunnels. Figure 2, shows the relationships of these containers and RPCs within the 'ietf-te' module. module: ietf-te +--rw te! +--rw globals . . +--rw tunnels . . +-- lsps rpcs: +---x tunnels-path-compute +---x tunnels-action Figure 2: TE Tunnel model high-level YANG tree view --- 5.1.1 OLD The 'globals' container covers properties that control TE features behavior system-wide, and its respective state (see Figure 3). The TE globals configuration include: NEW The 'globals' container covers properties that control a TE feature's behavior system-wide, and its respective state as shown in Figure 3 and described in the text that follows. END --- 5.1.1 s/list named/list of named/ s/The path constraint/The path constraints/ --- 5.1.1 OLD formed up of the following path constraints: NEW formed of the path constraints shown in Figure 4. END --- 5.1.1 OLD o setup/hold priority: A YANG leaf that holds the LSP setup and hold admission priority as defined in [RFC3209]. NEW o setup/hold priority: YANG leafs that holds the LSP setup and hold admission priority as defined in [RFC3209]. END --- 5.1.1 s/exclusions instruction/exclusion instructions/ (three times) --- 5.1.1 3. An empty 'route-object-include-exclude' list for a reverse path means it always follows the forward path (i.e., the TE Tunnel is co-routed). When the 'route-object-include- exclude' list is not empty, the reverse path is routed independently of the forward path. How would you show that the reverse path is routed independently, but that there are no constraints on the path? Do you have to include a random link that couldn't possibly be on the path just to make this point? --- 5.1.2 TE Tunnel: A YANG container of one or more LSPs established between the source and destination TE Tunnel termination points. A TE Tunnel LSP is a connection-oriented service provided by the network layer for the delivery of client data between a source and the destination of the TE Tunnel termination points. Figure 5 shows nothing related to LSPs. I had to look down at Figure 8 to find where LSPs sit in the tree. There I found that there are some mentions under 'tunnels' but mainly deeper under the various "path" branches such as 'primary-paths'. Perhaps the problem here is that you have introduced LSPs before talking about tunnel paths (5.1.2.1> so that it is necessary to read through to the end of 5.1.3 in order to see how it all hangs together. --- 5.1.2 The text describing the leaf nodes after Figure 5 does not appear to be in the same order as the tree diagram. 'description' and 'admin-state' are not described. There is no mention of whether there is any scope of uniqueness for the 'alias'. To be clear (and deducing from the reference), the 'color' is only to be used when the tunnel is exposed in BGP as described in RFC 9012 and has no other use. Great that you have the encoding and switching type and reference RFC 3945 for their meanings. I'd note that RFC 8779 actually references RFC 3471 for the meaning of these two things. I wondered by you also didn't show the G-PID (or encapsulation type) along with encoding and switching type. One might assume that this is only of interest to the end points, but it is important for management and for getting traffic into and out of the tunnel. But I see that RFC 8779 doesn't seem to cover that either. Any thoughts? s/inteval/interval/ I'm OK with what you have, but note that your definitions of source and destination seem to preclude ingress and egress protection schemes. The text at the top of the section... When the model is used to manage a TE controller, the 'tunnels' list contains all TE Tunnels and TE tunnel segments originating from device(s) that the TE controller manages. ...is confusing when considered in the context of the 'controller' leaf. Somewhere in the document you should be noting the implication of setting 'bidirectional' to true for the meaning of the various reverse-path objects. You have: The TE tunnel associations can be overridden by associations configured directly under the TE Tunnel path. Is it true that they are overridden? Or are they "supplemented"? That is, if you say that "these two tunnels are associated" is there anything you can do in the configuration of the paths to say that they are not? s/(see Figure 6./(see Figure 6)./ s/as a TE links/as a TE link/ --- 5.1.2.1 s/can be specified a set/can be specified as a set/ s/describe further/describes further/ s/The following set common path/The following set of common path/ A primary path is identified by 'name'. So, what is the uniqueness property required here? Just unique within the tunnel? Looking at 'preference', which first appears here, it is clear from the Description of 'path-preference' how preferences are ranked, but there is nothing to say how you distinguish between to equal values. Possibly that situation isn't allowed, but there is nothing said about that. --- 5.1.2.1 A secondary path contains attributes similar to a primary path. How "similar"? What are the differences? s/holds teh set/holds the set/ s/following set common path/following set of common path/ s/A path of TE Tunnel is/A path of a TE Tunnel is/ s/so that it can is/so that it can be/ s/instantiated in forwarding/instantiated in the forwarding plane/ --- 5.1.2.1 In some cases, a TE path may be provisioned for the only purpose of computing a path and reporting it without the need to instantiate the LSP or commit any resources. "Provisioned" may not be the best word. It usually means "provisioned in the network" which normally means "instantiated". How about "configured". s/for the only purpose/only for the purpose/ s/a YANG container/A YANG container/ (twice) --- 5.1.3 The 'lsps' container includes the set of TE LSP(s) that are instantiated. Should that be s/that are/that have been/ --- 5.3 Looks like the copyright statement in the ietf-te module is old. --- 5.3 In path-computation-error-reason you are capturing some of (all?) of the PCE No-Path-Vector bits in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv. It is highly confusing that, although you give the same references for the explanations, you don't use exactly the same wording. It would also be really helpful to list them in the same order as in the registry - at the very least, this would help me work out which reasons you have left out so that I can ask you why you left them out. But, that brings up another point. It seems to be messy that you have defined a list of reasons here, but if new reasons get assigned in the registry, each one has to be added through a new augmentation. I think the conventional way to handle this is through an IANA managed module that you include. --- 5.3 Sadly (and my fault for not picking this up during the review of RFC 8776 before publication) te-types defines the base type 'association-type' which is actually a mirror of the IANA registry at https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#association-type-field This gives us all a problem when new association types are introduced. Indeed, you don't have "SR Policy Association" in the base type. That is probably the first of many new associations that will get added. Again, this should probably have been in an IANA maintained module that could be included. Not sure whether this is something you can fix here. It probably needs: - Define the IANA YANG module (in this document or a separate document with a request for IANA to maintain it) - Import the IANA module in ietf-te - Make a bis of 8776 to drop association-type-field and import the new IANA module The third of these might be optional, although it seems like a good idea. This all seems a lot better than what you have done here which is define a new association type to match "Disjoint Association" (annoying that you gave it a different name!) that was left out of 8776. What you have done here means that someone else who wants to also use that association type must define it themselves or import your whole module! --- 5.3 Why do you use 5512 as a reference for protocol-origin-bgp when it has been obsoleted by 9012? Why are neither 5512 nor 9012 mentioned in the preamble txt at the top of 5.3? --- 5.3 Wondering why primary-reverse-path gets a Reference when primary-path, secondary-path, and secondary-reverse-path don't. Even the reference for primary-reverse-path is a little thin since 7551 doesn't mention "primary" in the whole document. Why doesn't primary-reverse-path have a path-preference? --- 5.3 leaf compute-only { type empty; description "When set, the path is computed and updated whenever the topology is updated. No resources are committed or reserved in the network."; } "computed and updated whenever the topology is updated" Do you mean this? Surely there are some thresholds and relevance tests? When compute-only is set, are a number of other leaf nodes meaningless and to be ignored? The text "When set" should probably be "When present" --- 5.3 I think that the Description for use-path-computation may not cover what you intend. You have: "When 'true' indicates the path is dynamically computed and/or validated against the Traffic-Engineering Database (TED), and when 'false' indicates no validation against the TED is required."; So, if the path is incomplete (i.e., computation is required) and this field is set to false, is the path computed? Or what happens? The text further up the document doesn't mention "validation". --- 5.3 /* This grouping will be re-used in path-computation rpc */ s/will be/is/ ? (several times) --- 5.3 The only mention of path-scope is when it appears in the module itself. Here the Description tells use the meaning, but not how it gets set by the implementation (yes, I see it is read-only). 8776 doesn't help with this (just defining the base type). More words are needed. --- 5.3 grouping k-requested-paths { description "The k-shortest paths requests."; leaf k-requested-paths { type uint8; default "1"; description "The number of k-shortest-paths requested from the path computation server and returned sorted by its optimization objective. The value 0 all possible paths."; } } Isn't "all possible paths" a potential exposure? You seem to recognise this by limiting the requested number of paths to 255. But then you specifically allow "all" which could be a very large number of paths. I think you should cap this by allowing the "path computation server" (wow, there is some old terminology ;-) to limit how many paths it returns in all cases, and in any case saying that it must not return more than 255 paths. That said, 255 is still a lot of paths especially if you are doing recomputations every time the topology is updated. --- 5.3 I think I am a little disappointed that lsp-provisioning-error-info only has a string to describe the provisioning error: no numeric code or identity. --- Seems you have some things like "When set to 'True'" and "If 'False'" These should be 'true' and 'false'. --- 5.3 leaf lsp-protection-state { type identityref { base te-types:lsp-protection-state; } default "te-types:normal"; description "The state of the APS state machine controlling which tunnels is using the resources of the protecting LSP."; } Either "tunnel is" or "tunnels are" Why does this text talk about the APS state machine when 8776 makes reference to 4427? Possibly the references in 8776 are wrong and should have pointed to 7271 and 8234. If you intend those meanings of APS then you should simply add references to your document. (Raising an Errata Report against 8776 for this would be a bonus) --- 5.3 I think the reference for aps-signal-id is wrong. --- 5.3 Shouldn't the hold-off, wait-to-restore, and wait-to-revert timers have defaults? --- 5.3 Why are src-tunnel-tp-id and dst-tunnel-tp-id of type binary and not te-tp-id? --- 5.3 leaf protection-group-ingress-node-id { type te-types:te-node-id; description "When specified, indicates whether the action is applied on ingress node. By default, if neither ingress nor egress node-id is set, the action applies to ingress node only."; } leaf protection-group-egress-node-id { type te-types:te-node-id; description "When specified, indicates whether the action is applied on egress node. By default, if neither ingress nor egress node-id is set, the action applies to ingress node only."; } The "by default" language here implies that the ingress node id is known even when not set here. In that case, why do you need these to be of type te-node-id? Wouldn't boolean do just as well? BTW, this is not "by default". It is "if" since you are defining a meaning that has no other override. --- 5.3 Would you consider renaming the lsp-record-route-information-state etc. to lsp-actual-route-information-state etc. and dropping mention of RSVP? This might prove to be more useful in the general (non-RSVP-TE) case. But, as I read a bit further beyond this grouping, I found a lot of stuff that was expressed in terms of RSVP-TE. Surely, either that should be generalised to be in this model, or it should be moved out into the RSVP-TE augmentation? Random example... leaf destination { type te-types:te-node-id; description "The tunnel endpoint address extracted from SESSION object."; reference "RFC3209"; } --- 6.1.1 s/interface attributes/Interface attributes/ --- 6.2 Figure 11 shows the tree diagram of the device TE YANG model defined in modules 'ietf-te.yang'. Possibly 'ietf-te-device.yang' --- 6.3 Copyright date --- The two modules seem a bit confused about where the controls for individual LSPs go. the base module has many things for configuring and operating individual LSPs, but the device model has the LSP timers that are applicable only at the ingress nodes for LSPs. Surely, those timers are also specific to the LSPs and could be grouped in the base model. That said, the Description "Applicable to ingress LSPs only" may be missing an "of" or maybe s/P/R/ And anyway, the Descriptions of the timers are a bit vague. For example, does life-time report how long the LSP has been up or say after how long it will be torn down? --- Section 8 appears to be empty! --- Section 13 needs to use IP addresses from the documentation range not real routable addresses. --- I think all three of [RFC4427], [RFC8800], and [RFC9012] are used as explanations of items in the modules and so they should be normative references. -----Original Message----- From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: 21 March 2022 13:28 To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-29 All, This starts working group last call on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te/ Given the size of the document and this week's meeting, this will be an extended LC. The working group last call ends on April 13th. Please send your comments to the working group mailing list. Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome! This is useful and important, even from authors. Thank you, Lou (Co-Chair & doc Shepherd) _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list Teas@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
- [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-29 Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… t petch
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Italo Busi
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… t petch
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… julien.meuric
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-… Tarek Saad