[Teas] 答复: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-18

yuchaode <yuchaode@huawei.com> Mon, 27 June 2022 08:17 UTC

Return-Path: <yuchaode@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 11F3CC14F72A; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 01:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 Mn2mmZWi2-OQ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 01:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
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 E42A7C14F745; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 01:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml744-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4LWgYZ0kjWz688G2; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:16:50 +0800 (CST)
Received: from canpemm100001.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.122) by fraeml744-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.225) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:17:29 +0200
Received: from canpemm500002.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.244) by canpemm100001.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.122) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.24; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:17:27 +0800
Received: from canpemm500002.china.huawei.com ([7.192.104.244]) by canpemm500002.china.huawei.com ([7.192.104.244]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.024; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:17:27 +0800
From: yuchaode <yuchaode@huawei.com>
To: 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
CC: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-18
Thread-Index: AQHYb5YfSP5Im6ATVkSq5fJwmkC7j61RmYMAgBF8NbA=
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:17:27 +0000
Message-ID: <4006eddafe774c6e9af742ebe4fef459@huawei.com>
References: <CA+YzgTthabrS5jga0ANoTxxxyLsx-9ixHg6jQocL_pkbrmbiig@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YzgTuQRkQiTbsKi4W25+E6R-Y9h0EYjV_Lhw7TL3YwnP_47Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTuQRkQiTbsKi4W25+E6R-Y9h0EYjV_Lhw7TL3YwnP_47Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.117.175.195]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4006eddafe774c6e9af742ebe4fef459huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/oV5xGG3eN22jNk4HAUdVMLkzB_w>
Subject: [Teas] 答复: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-18
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:17:36 -0000

Hi WG and chairs,

These are some comments from my side:

(1)     In section5, there may be an editorial error. It is mentioned in the document that, it defines a YANG RPC augments to tunnel-rpc which is defined in ietf-teas-yang-te. But according to the latest draft of TE tunnel, tunnel-rpc is removed. And the RPC are augmenting to tunnels-path-compute actually.

(2)     The examples provided in the appendix provides wrong URL. I think the URL should be  /restconf/operations/ietf-te:tunnels-path-compute, instead of /restconf/operations/ietf-te:te:tunnels-path-compute. There is a ':te' redundant in the example URL. Tunnel-path-compute is not defined under te root container.

(3)     Since there is no primary path and secondary path defined in path computation model, though I think  path computation model can support protected tunnel path computation, I still suggest to provide some examples in appendix for reference.

Thanks,
Chaode

发件人: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Vishnu Pavan Beeram
发送时间: 2022年6月16日 20:49
收件人: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
抄送: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [Teas] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-18

We are extending the last call to June 24th to allow for a few more reviews.

-Pavan and Lou

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 11:14 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> wrote:
All,

This starts working group last call on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation/

Given the size of the document, this will be an extended
LC (3 weeks). The working group last call ends on June 14th.
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,
Pavan and Lou