Re: [Teas] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sat, 09 March 2019 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 F39AF127964 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:02:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 VMGiugv-ezDL for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:02:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) (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 DE340127598 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:02:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw10.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.10]) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D881AC3BC for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2019 13:55:52 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 2j0ahRpdMuj2o2j0ahTXTC; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 13:55:52 -0700
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: $(_cmae_reason
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=YAAz6lwfi3mxWAQn9EE7NsF5zEQyXQZStrtXPkQ4wHI=; b=GQYrdaBB6fXC0hWqQlj7yWmFrn 7Qv+9JLe1bdiCRB9GwlMpU838bq+OY51a2jQ1TVAYN7KbV6Az0dFGSfXzbJvpPYjTnWrO/vQUpsYr dQm4swlVXi9YamgIXPQoSeUT+;
Received: from pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([72.66.11.201]:59012 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1h2j0a-000Kll-1T; Sat, 09 Mar 2019 13:55:52 -0700
To: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>, Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>
References: <155189817187.307.659471814489604970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6800dd59-ee76-9985-ec6c-060d9ee9d498@labn.net> <CAEz6PPSHsPz0G80nANavYoM-Z6E_ar2nB+P0yoGeAVRBgBVDOw@mail.gmail.com> <a4919a8c-daf0-0056-938d-37f91e8b0932@labn.net> <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD00786391C6B1B1C@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <ba01d39b-1213-7462-2c80-8749a6fd340a@labn.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 15:55:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD00786391C6B1B1C@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------40744AB453DC854D134349C4"
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 72.66.11.201
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1h2j0a-000Kll-1T
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [72.66.11.201]:59012
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/pzVjJZid4sBJwoK4nwojeSIdIyw>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-teas-yang-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: Sat, 09 Mar 2019 21:02:03 -0000

Hi Igor, (and authors)

     Can you point to where in the archive this discussion took place - 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/?q=source%20instance isn't 
yielding helpful information.  It's also fine for the authors to make 
the case for the change now if a suitable reference can't be found.

Lou

PS For future reference, technical changes are generally now allowed 
once a document has been approved by the IESG, and even more rarely once 
in the RFC editor queue.  (This is nothing new - I remember having quite 
a discussion back when Jon P. was RFC editor and having to convince him 
that moving the '|' in a packet format half a bit over in a drawing 
didn't require moving the doc out of the RFC editor queue even though 
half bits clearly didn't match the text.)

On 3/8/2019 3:56 PM, Igor Bryskin wrote:
>
> Hi Lou,
>
> We have had quite a bit of  private discussions between the 
> co-anthers, and I believe, we provided a summary to the WG.
>
> In our opinion it is a very simple, straightforward, yet quite useful 
> addition. It was brought  to our attention by the model implementers 
> that for a given topological element (e.g. TE link) there could be 
> more than one instance of the same source of where the information has 
> come from. For example, there could be more  than one instance of 
> OSPF-TE protocol running in the network, and it is useful for the 
> client application to understand which instance discovered/provided 
> information for which TE links.  Before the change the model could 
> only indicate the type of the information source (OSPF-TE protocol), 
> but not its specific instance, hence the addition of the instance leaf.
>
> Regards,
>
> Igor (and co-authors)
>
> *From:*Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 08, 2019 2:53 PM
> *To:* Xufeng Liu
> *Cc:* TEAS WG; draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Fwd: IETF WG state changed for 
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo
>
> Xufeng,
>
>     Can you (or other authors) discuss the motivations/issue addressed 
> by the information-source-instance?-- Perhaps I missed it, but I 
> believe  this was a change made without WG discussion.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lou
>
> On 3/8/2019 2:25 PM, Xufeng Liu wrote:
>
>     Hi Lou,
>
>     The change summary has been posted to the WG mailing list
>     (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/sQ2wMTXYXwniUujt29fysqHwwpI).
>     Please advise if the authors need to do anything further.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     - Xufeng
>
>     On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:21 PM Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net
>     <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
>
>         All,
>
>             The recent versions of the te-topology doc had
>         sufficiently significant technical changes that our AD and I,
>         with input from the authors, agreed that the document should
>         come back to the WG and to rerun a full last call process. 
>         The key changes in rev -19 were:
>
>         - Referencing the te-types document and updates to point to
>         its module
>
>         - introduction of information-source-instance
>
>         The second change is a technical change resulting from
>         implementation experience, so is a good change, but as it is a
>         substantive technical change the document has to come out of
>         the RFC editor queue to accept it.
>
>         Authors,
>
>             Can you send out a message summarizing all changes.
>
>         We will then restart the WG LC process.
>
>         Thank you,
>
>         Lou (as Shepherd/co-chair)
>
>         -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
>         *Subject: *
>
>         	
>
>         IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo
>
>         *Date: *
>
>         	
>
>         Wed, 06 Mar 2019 10:49:31 -0800
>
>         *From: *
>
>         	
>
>         IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
>         <mailto:ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>
>
>         *To: *
>
>         	
>
>         lberger@labn.net <mailto:lberger@labn.net>,
>         teas-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>,
>         draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org
>         <mailto:draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>
>
>
>
>
>         The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo has been
>         changed to "WG
>         Document" from "Submitted to IESG for Publication" by Deborah
>         Brungard:
>
>         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Teas mailing list
>         Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>