Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo

tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> Fri, 08 May 2020 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfa@btconnect.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 BB2D03A0997 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 03:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.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 3fH9mqJGcoEE for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 03:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR04-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr70122.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.7.122]) (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 AA2EF3A0998 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 03:06:53 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=EX5Mtu6RvV6tPhAYP5YqZAxvIFsJDjgkXuTenIPwiGqdrJnADwdrncmitjRQexKJbo1wMVXO8p9WbdbigNKDdvqPdNO/YcrI59mNNrfR528x3th/qb4CeB7/1STHIaEwrsaktbXBB4VGjFmcZQxdZHJbXTr+YdGBz+C8toQo7EIJwXMWJOPCCoMdUATbCA0lCIYb+R8SW0bVdAF4dT8ZlIkbI1StHDnrWuPvWbEwYuEschj0NBEoGa00osuliq8RiX6GtOPSXoQiD/pqCYQqMHtmlhp42iq6PF1bKk2yt6KnykiSONIUWVyi5FHVe9lfnesnmDWX/0GAmyLyNf8O6Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=WzxjDjxm6wHFeWCW/1Mj63HJ80A9PxMP2nUzRJSb9GU=; b=HYjGMfipDyJ6iXrCqR9T6acI9zbdTaG4JAnuBZ4w0hkm1Xbs0aYeawKBlTR58IGgEZa6xRPU1Q/Vkj3Bm+RvlM2rb3G9mvHK5o585dVb0QgXMP7Nu2MT2pRWSLCZuaANS24C27HA9UWCb8UXIRUG4mC5I9G+28dccX3h5iuMz10hH8cX0Ei+z6bLwqEvMHdLq2pP9oCAqzWot90IA+POSLuMGHHV3a8pAWp09Dh4mHO+MDVJZBP0Bau6Yn9MuY1PhqvOZMqoqE1E1WYpZV7A540AIewPdrCVD5rNRz5iQ9ASdAH0cx0Viom1zX02DYHSsT7/8Y160owyWWI3yqz2SQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=WzxjDjxm6wHFeWCW/1Mj63HJ80A9PxMP2nUzRJSb9GU=; b=cGqe4hsgSaeSyhJVY3PiLkCaMU8Sd4hiN05frA8PBpHTQCBtSjWMj9Oxi6+r6qVxy7XIiwPOOGvK3iTjfpQ0dFnctwFqoWVeucVJK4m4uz60lUBrlcrpBwm1DiN8fptOMVuU6jkrlkpyAuDcFKSF0pU7mNnqnumgQfzJNy8ATbs=
Received: from DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:69::25) by DB7PR07MB6170.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:10:6d::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2979.23; Fri, 8 May 2020 10:06:50 +0000
Received: from DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6d73:b879:b380:bed4]) by DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6d73:b879:b380:bed4%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2979.025; Fri, 8 May 2020 10:06:50 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
To: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
Thread-Index: AQHWGBjZqBIQHbOU4kWdbmKNe1eMVKiTGetTgAiwUYCAAkI8PQ==
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 10:06:50 +0000
Message-ID: <DB7PR07MB5340DFF664791762E1F082F6A2A20@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAEz6PPQC8NUnTimMVXBXzbd9+FxdeTDV8NXPuLDASBF=1YUR_A@mail.gmail.com> <DB7PR07MB53406ABD74B3CEE15B5952BDA2AB0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <CAEz6PPS-ZWSb7cubv2jB05ZCb9kyyGXDPd5KpAQ05iHmtpMpCw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEz6PPS-ZWSb7cubv2jB05ZCb9kyyGXDPd5KpAQ05iHmtpMpCw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=btconnect.com;
x-originating-ip: [81.131.229.19]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 748bf4c9-623b-4a71-5b48-08d7f33786de
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB7PR07MB6170:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB7PR07MB617002D8642787DA0D5393BFA2A20@DB7PR07MB6170.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:3968;
x-forefront-prvs: 039735BC4E
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(136003)(39860400002)(366004)(376002)(396003)(346002)(33430700001)(6506007)(53546011)(9686003)(316002)(33440700001)(7696005)(55016002)(478600001)(86362001)(6916009)(4326008)(71200400001)(8936002)(64756008)(8676002)(66476007)(966005)(33656002)(91956017)(15650500001)(26005)(66446008)(83290400001)(83280400001)(83310400001)(5660300002)(83320400001)(66556008)(186003)(76116006)(66946007)(52536014)(2906002)(83300400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: oWbnMEudE68teBn0uPgm4zn/pXoErctOv3DNwrdwv+81jAb7XTt7rNJ6LasodfiWVe7TfxiTh/9npYrCVFSVdk1jdqYxxmdtjsArbykv+XLL8behwrqQjW8t6TktdrRfUs6OlbMRo4hg8jPxlGAsJWx0pfQDU0yLwtcJkRmAwj948CgsJbjjiEV8fMWC2S+LetrEG/Ep6S2c4F8VvlofP8/boUqTupuyl4zixVsxdkTaY20p/jbAhhrLu6cVZ1LHa12BaWdbdtSObZ1YpGFMGdxFh9LZpCxyP0DgERL9tFkzl3Xgq4EoU1Wkf648jJymUpgNiF8T6AgShisaSdKabeumHfMMlhHMRVfvPJUelyUYX6f6uSsFvPYTEI0Mtmgh2lhTHG2OPF24HMZ03bShxcoqgyNchWNEKtHZoK1KU+/3PsFe7aoa50uqe64+Tmf3wfak0qJBGayKCHM0PNs/9kjGeXvSmBWRinKqfeMbUAw=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 748bf4c9-623b-4a71-5b48-08d7f33786de
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 May 2020 10:06:50.6705 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 8sgAe0LiSTvVYgZxPFtfTRX5szznnrce9RPyHIiIQApUOM4zp8hUVVIb40fmANhO9Smq+R0zvWfIRHGcw5Hdzw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR07MB6170
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4h9V18Nj27tHMSKYXFLoJpfSfbM>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
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: Fri, 08 May 2020 10:07:17 -0000

From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: 07 May 2020 00:22

Hi Tom,

Thanks for reviewing and sorry about the errors. We have posted an updated version https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-07, to fix the errors about the augmentation description and to rephrase a couple of sections to explain the relations between the related models and their objects. Please let us know for anything that is not clear enough.

<tp>
Thanks for the update.  I now find s.2 s.2.1 clear but still struggle thereafter.  When you use layer 3 topology I find it ambiguous.  Is it layer 3 unicast topology or layer 3 te topology?  Thus in s.2.2.1
"When TE is enabled on a layer 3 topology .. " implies unicast
"congruent to the layer 3 topology .."
implies unicast
" the layer 3 topology will have a reference.."
 ah, no, must be layer 3 te topology
and this is the case throughout the rest of s.2.  I would like to see those references to layer 3 topology clarified, unicast or te.  You may want to say that layer 3 topology means ... while layer 3 ... topology will be spelt out in full or some such, I am easy, but do think that you need to use two distinct terms.  

As you may infer, I like to work top down, start with Abstract, then Introduction, then s.2 s.3 making sense of them before seeing if the module does what these sections say, so when I get stuck in s.2, I do not make it to details of the YANG module.

Tom Petch

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:56 AM tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote:
From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>>
Sent: 21 April 2020 21:09


Status update on draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo

Current Status:

  *  The updated revision -06 was posted on March 8, 2020:
     - Editorial changes.
  *  Corordinated with ietf-eth-te-topology and ietf-te-mpls-tp-topo
     for the augmentation of ietf-te-topology
     - ietf-te-topology does not need to be changed.
  *  Answered YANG doctor's review comments.

Open Issues:

  *   None.

<tp>

I started  to review this and have given up,  I cannot make sense of section 2, which I see as fundamental to understanding the I-D.
 Thus
The YANG modulues  ietf-l3-te-topology ...
These two modules augment ietf-l3-te topology
No they don't!  This augments
ietf-l3-unicast-topology
which is quite different and I find this confusion elsewhere in section two. Thus
Relationship  between Layer 3 Topology and TE Topology
Is that Layer 3 TE Topology or ietf-network-topology?  I think that many if not most  references to TE Topology are ambiguous and need clarifying - is the reference to Layer 3 TE Topology to  ietf-network-topology?

Some of the words are quirky and this website is determined not to let me put them into an e-mail but here goes.

modulues
topoology
moducment
Local ink

Tom Petch
Next Steps:


  *  Update the model to sync with the referenced models like draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types if there are any changes.
  *  Welcome further reviews and suggestions.
  *  Working Group Last Call after completing the above.

Thanks,
- Xufeng