IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Teas] Missing switching-types for WSON and flexi-grid: WG LC comment for RFC 8776-bis or RFC 9093-bis

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Sat, 09 November 2024 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.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 3BE5EC14F74A; Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:18:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id As1aTIsmD1XO; Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:18:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFD51C14F616; Sat, 9 Nov 2024 03:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XltbG49y5z6L6wJ; Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:18:18 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.131]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D98E140517; Sat, 9 Nov 2024 19:18:25 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.172) by frapeml100008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Sat, 9 Nov 2024 12:18:25 +0100
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) by frapeml500007.china.huawei.com ([7.182.85.172]) with mapi id 15.01.2507.039; Sat, 9 Nov 2024 12:18:25 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Missing switching-types for WSON and flexi-grid: WG LC comment for RFC 8776-bis or RFC 9093-bis
Thread-Index: AdsymKpTVZU9RTbmT++p+JKSww7xuw==
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2024 11:18:25 +0000
Message-ID: <49a1953ca67e4e799531c4835d6241e8@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.126.173.29]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_49a1953ca67e4e799531c4835d6241e8huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: ZGK2GOZISY2ZY3BXZRCEBOMBUJ24YSL4
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZGK2GOZISY2ZY3BXZRCEBOMBUJ24YSL4
X-MailFrom: Italo.Busi@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-teas.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Teas] Missing switching-types for WSON and flexi-grid: WG LC comment for RFC 8776-bis or RFC 9093-bis
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ktLf4T06Z4SRAvIMa8nR5fOtjRQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:teas-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:teas-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:teas-leave@ietf.org>

I have recently noted that there are no standardized YANG identities that could be used to represent the WSON-LSC, defined in RFC 7688, and flexi-grid LSC, defined in RFC 8363

I am not sure whether these identities are better defined in TE Types (RFC 8776-bis) or Layer0 Types (RFC 9093-bis) YANG models but since both drafts are in WG LC we can fix in either was this gap

My personal preference is to add them to RFC 9093-bis in order to avoid the need to update TE Types any time a new technology-specific switching type or LSP encoding type is defined

What do you think?

Italo

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status