Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-08

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Your suggestion would work in the title, noting that “broader” is possibly a stretch since maybe you mean “narrower”. But go with “broader”.

 

There is, of course, some text in the document that needs tidying in line with that change.

 

A

 

From: Italo Busi <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 18 March 2024 06:09
To: [e-mail]; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <[e-mail]>; 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-08

 

Hi Adrian,

 

I agree with you that a debate about whether an application is TE or non-TE would most likely be a endless waste of time also because, IMHO, the boundaries between TE and non-TE applications is getting more and more blurred

 

However, I have some concerns with removing the term “non-TE” from the draft because the arguments raised against re-using RFC8795 are two:

*	The model is too complex
*	We need a solution for non-TE case(s)

 

We may just provide some text in the introduction to indicate that “no matter whether you think the use cases are TE or non-TE, the TE Topology YANG model can be used as long it meets the requirements for the specific use case” and then tweak the remaining text as examples of use cases which can be addressed by proper profiling the TE topology model

 

Regarding the draft title, I am afraid that “Specific Limited Use Cases” can be interpreted as limiting the applicability of the TE topology only to the use cases described in this draft while, IMHO, the use cases described in the draft as just some examples

 

What about: “Profiles of the Traffic Engineering (TE) Topology Data Model and Applicability to Broader Use Cases” instead?

 

Italo

 

From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Sent: venerdì 15 marzo 2024 03:17
To: 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-08

 

Hi Pavan,

 

I just read this document and think it is useful to do this sort of profiling for specific use cases. We should adopt it.

 

A “small” point…

I would prefer to not get into the debate about whether these use cases in section 2 are or are not TE. I think such a debate would be a significant waste of our time and probably would be damaging to good will all round.

Can we avoid it by simply talking about:

“Profiles of the Traffic Engineering (TE) Topology Data Model and Applicability to Specific Limited Use Cases”

I think that, beyond the title, only a few places in the text would also need to change.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Teas <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 13 March 2024 17:58
To: TEAS WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-08

 

All,

This is start of a *three* week poll on making
draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-08 a TEAS working group document

[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-08].


Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If
yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see
addressed once the document is a WG document.

The poll ends April 3rd, 2024.

Thank you,
Pavan, Lou and Oscar