[Teas] Re: Working group last call: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10
Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Fri, 27 September 2024 18:35 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 5CA2CC1D4A99; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:35:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 yShqvlGDMGiO; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:35:37 -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 B6BC6C14F6BA; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 11:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XFfJt6Vdfz6K6W7; Sat, 28 Sep 2024 02:34:54 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml100005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.132]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE8E14038F; Sat, 28 Sep 2024 02:35:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from frapeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.172) by frapeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:35:33 +0200
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; Fri, 27 Sep 2024 20:35:33 +0200
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Oscar González de Dios <oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10
Thread-Index: AQHalHxVVfLVqmZlB02J0SrQBds5MbJs6ALQ
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 18:35:33 +0000
Message-ID: <498e1d7a3a1b4dbda1085e888cc302c3@huawei.com>
References: <PAXPR06MB7872E021311DADD1FCF70393FD042@PAXPR06MB7872.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com> <PAVPR07MB9359E184F17926BD2FF3EE2391092@PAVPR07MB9359.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <PAVPR07MB93591638458542F340C4749B910D2@PAVPR07MB9359.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DU2PR02MB10160B28B3AA23AB0E95D41CD88122@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DU2PR02MB10160B28B3AA23AB0E95D41CD88122@DU2PR02MB10160.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.81.207.75]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_498e1d7a3a1b4dbda1085e888cc302c3huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: KBVKSUIFX2TJKSQZWUORP7S354AEVJ6Y
X-Message-ID-Hash: KBVKSUIFX2TJKSQZWUORP7S354AEVJ6Y
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
CC: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Teas] Re: Working group last call: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/tsc5Cp0djOfGlSXaYDVZn5qo9cs>
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>
Hi Med, Many thanks for your review and comments Please find below the feedbacks from co-authors/contributors We have just submitted draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-13 addressing all of them Thanks, Italo (on behalf of co-authors/contributors) From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Sent: lunedì 22 aprile 2024 08:13 To: Oscar González de Dios <oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org> Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10 Hi all, Many thanks to the authors for being meticulous and identifying each update vs. 8776. Please find below some comments, fwiw: # Major comments ## Offload path-computation-error-reason to an IANA-maintained model. The current design is suboptimal. Please refer to the 84047bis on these matters. <Authors> We have added some some text explaning the rationale for this design choice, based on the former discussion on the mailing list about this issue: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/WXcw8q7sqYkFBbF-R5KfdBp00AI/ <\Authors> ## Default values may be problematic when reusing the groupings. For example, if the same grouping is used in some kind of profile but the grouping is called for in addition to reference to that profile, the default value will override what is inherited from the profile. I would remove the default statement, but add the default value in the description text. <Authors> The design decision was to limit the use of default statements to the minimum level only to data nodes where they are really required and universally applicable. For example, a node-hop shall report a node identifier: reporting a node hop is optional (a profile can avoid reporting it) but if a node hop is reported a node identifier shall be present Unless a specific issue is identified, the authors prefer not to change the existing default statements <\Authors> ## Mandatory statements may also be problematic and would prevent some usages. For example, a CIR/CBS must always be present, while this is not optimal when profiling/templates are used. <Authors> The design decision was to limit the use of mandatory/must/when statements to the minimum level only to data nodes where they are really required and universally applicable. For example, a node-hop shall report a node identifier: reporting a node hop is optional (a profile can avoid reporting it) but if a node hop is reported a node identifier shall be present Unless a specific issue is identified, the authors prefer not to change the existing mandatory/must/when statements <\Authors> ### BTW, please consider aligning the bandwidth structure with the bandwidth groupings in the AC and slicing models: add pir/pbs. Authors>> Done in the -13 version of the I-D ## It seems that the module focuses mainly on configuration, while this should cover also reporting purposes. Please update the description of the some nodes to reflect this + consider new groupings: ### for example, performance-metrics-attributes-packet and one-way-performance-metrics-packet can't be reused for stats. Please consider providing new groupings (with the same nodes) but with gauge type. Authors>> Agreed: done in the -12 version of the I-D ## Minor comments ## I would avoid changing the structure of sections to ease mapping with 8776. For example, I would keep 1.1/1.2 as it was in 8776. Authors>> Agreed: done in the -12 version of the I-D ## Acronyms: order them in an alphabetic order. Not sure the reasoning of the current ordering. Authors>> Agreed: done in the -13 version of the I-D ## Include trees with -print-groupings or a pointer to where to retrieve the full trees. Authors>> Agreed: appendix added in the -13 version of the I-D ## The tree in 3.2 is not aligned with the YANG module: the bandwidth tree indicates that CIR/CBS are optional (with ?), while these are tagged as mandatory in the module. Authors>> Fixed in the -12 version of the I-D ## Consider adding explicit pointers to the specific section(s) of cited documents. It is not always easy to find which part of a document is relevant. ### This should be fixed for both the narrative text and the YANG models. Authors>> Our preference is not to make this change: the reference to the RFCs seem sufficient ## I have doubts about many of enums (e.g., path-type). Please check that these are justified vs using identities. <Authors> Most of the enumerations are from RFC 8776 and changing them would be an NBC change The path-type should be an enumeration since it is follows the structure of the TE tunnel model. It can and shall be updated only when new types of paths are defined, through standard actions, in the TE tunnel model. The te-generic-node-id should also be an enumeration. It can and shall be updated only when new formatting for the te-gen-node-id data type are defined, through standard actions, in the TE types model . <\Authors> ## union of union types (e.g., te-gen-node-id) includes overlapping types (e.g., inet:ip-address vs. inet:ipv6-address-no-zone): consider simplifying. <Authors> It seems that the comment applies only to typedef te-gen-node-id We have removed the typedef te-gen-node-id since it cannot be used alone and moved the union within the grouping te-generic-node-id with the description that the union is disambiguated by the leaf type: done in the -12 version of the I-D <\Authors> ## I think that many informative references should move to be normative. For example, RFC6370 should be normative. Please double check. <Authors> Agreed: done in the -12 version of the I-D Please note that with these changes, this I-D has now a dependency to draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo as a normative reference <\Authors> ## MEF 6.2 EVC Ethernet Services Definitions Phase 3 - MEF : standard superseded. Please double check this reference. Authors>> We have not found any reference to MEF 6.2 ## I filled a PR with editorial fixes, broken refs, etc.: https://github.com/tsaad-dev/te/pull/277/files Authors>> We have reviewed the PR offline together and updated the -12 version of the I-D accordingly Thank you. Cheers, Med From: Sergio Belotti (Nokia) Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:06 AM To: Oscar González de Dios <oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com<mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>>; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>> Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>> Subject: RE: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10 Hi Oscar, WG, I found an issue in section 3.1 where te-node-id description is not aligned with the new typedef supporting also IPV6 format . Provided that authors can fix this misalignment I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication. Thanks Sergio From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Oscar González de Dios Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 10:17 AM To: 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>> Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>> Subject: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-10 Algunos contactos que recibieron este mensaje no suelen recibir correos electrónicos de oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com<mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>. Por qué esto es importante<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Dear TEAS WG colleagues, This email starts a two-week working group last call on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update/ The working group last call ends on April 26th 2024. 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. Please note that no IPR was disclosed for this document. Thank you, Oscar, Pavan, Lou ________________________________ Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
- [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-teas-r… Oscar González de Dios
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… daniele.ietf
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Rakesh Gandhi
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Sergio Belotti (Nokia)
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Sergio Belotti (Nokia)
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… mohamed.boucadair
- [Teas] Re: Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Italo Busi
- [Teas] 回复: Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Zhenghaomian
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS
- [Teas] Re: Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Italo Busi
- Re: [Teas] Working group last call: draft-ietf-te… Aihua Guo
- [Teas] Second Working group last call of draft-ie… OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Daniele Ceccarelli
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Adrian Farrel
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… mohamed.boucadair
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… mohamed.boucadair
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… mohamed.boucadair
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… mohamed.boucadair
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… mohamed.boucadair
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… mohamed.boucadair
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi
- [Teas] Re: Second Working group last call of draf… Italo Busi