Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15.txt> (YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies) to Proposed Standard

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.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 5069E130F59; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 p7ZfCudzwQpG; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x243.google.com (mail-io0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 537E112F1A6; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x243.google.com with SMTP id e15-v6so225267iog.1; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Eklk/GGpKdlsgjownm8I0cBm/fkhpITsHgwfH9LnJE8=; b=rsKfP/VTmqA00qsgONX6aSQ9s71fHE6IhB3vMykEuAMIPMLERTYAnHZ/k73CR5a8C/ gFCCjam8/tQNamFo956rIW0sgTNkb2w+nDAooyZF5UHmH39WHvSYgX3R+pFkBz1uYsLj kXlybIBZTmLt13SjHRBmwqnHEq+tda7zsSk0t8+T8b5YV8pvzMtYPNke/gNaYW4s/5T8 jtbHxbyjKgFiq2IelLRLjcFKlOcw0wvRKHta0uLP39f0ZQ7Z9ebKzwh750F7zAKDcq62 aYAX6EZQYTHggIT4WopppQRF9IpbU9lvCmTvgGehxHXcfvZsti35QLUGaeyEbj39MMaS z/qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Eklk/GGpKdlsgjownm8I0cBm/fkhpITsHgwfH9LnJE8=; b=UJIyJ4tre6X+LF7IUp7HTGgPh8s0709WT88fK9LEA3euoGNqDePCzsaKecAsoG9X7F pI13HIVJPdXnGnwe9NM7Yu50+TWCbAhxhVccStEcC+Q1jEe/v1n2qTV5xVwe3McYej2a JA9CaJ6XaM4LyV8cetd97DpanACL9ZPiOdTXFIG+XMV4O2Tb7uYt0z42DMN97pivIYrK TCloWS79aBzPxuffG06OZkhHHPlkC88MmFF38wjGcnqdX35ayK9pqTcXF5E/IYJOIHFa pEJPmoUkRSi9plenc5VsMQRE2Xqq93Azi6pp3MPssHR2hOYUpQIHtdd/ctsva1JWmYD/ mbYg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2WXiSfU7QER0UlWvOfWSaP1QyeNgROHMPgbkJvhzge7ovt+nGI oDWphigUD/FrAzQwpruX2aSmX/zAc4Dvxcr3wijqz+tK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIFvE4eSJqNXqhF9t6ioYg0cCr0bQFIVDdDXmVXyN33uqSG/lvl60Q4MO3eqIPTEHvZL03kmxA3wPk69vKEdT8=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:1a53:: with SMTP id a80-v6mr13231151ioa.143.1529415189688; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a5e:c90e:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <051701d407be$e01a7d00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <152648165949.30969.14002611163004300703.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <00fa01d3fcee$db4933a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <008501d3fd78$99a4e5e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <051701d407be$e01a7d00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:33:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPQWDNbToDM14zbn2B40QNuC5Sb3UtWM=mi+cMX3xeAxVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000187835056efeb962"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/uhobpUpYla7h8Gt6Sp7b_G6M3UE>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15.txt> (YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:33:16 -0000

Hi Tom,

Agree what you said. We have brought this issue up in the NETMOD WG, but
our proposal got shot down.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/?q=augment+grouping

We will try again later, but this is what we have for now.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:11 AM, tom p. <daedulus@btconnect.com>; wrote:

> I just got a sight of where this I-D leads to and find it challenging.
>
> This I-D provides a template in Appendix C for other technologies to use
> to augment the base YANG module:
>
> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang
>
> is such a technology and the YANG module therein consists of about 90
> statements of the form
>
>   /* Augment label hop of route-include of connectivity-matrices (added)
> */
>   augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/tet:te/"
>         + "tet:te-node-attributes/tet:connectivity-matrices/"
>         + "tet:optimizations/tet:algorithm/tet:metric/"
>         + "tet:optimization-metric/"
>         + "tet:explicit-route-include-objects/"
>         + "tet:route-object-include-object/"
>         + "tet:type/tet:label/tet:label-hop/"
>         + "tet:te-label/tet:technology" {
>     when "../../../../../../../../../../../../../../"
>        + "nw:network-types/tet:te-topology/"
>        + "otntopo:otn-topology" {
>       description "Augment OTN TE label";
>     }
>     description "OTN label.";
>     case otn {  uses otn-types:otn-path-label; }
>   }
>
> The YANG tree diagram, which is 'used to provided a simplified graphical
> representation of a data model' runs to 15 pages and is almost harder to
> follow.
>
> It does seem to me that something has gone wrong here, with the
> capabilities of YANG or the way it is used or ...  My knowledge of YANG
> is not enough to know whether or not there is a different approach in
> this I-D which would make the augmenting module easier to understand
> (e.g. a data tree of fewer than 20 levels, use of relative XPath paths
> or replacing 'when' with 'if-feature') but it does seem that what we
> have now is hard to review in a meaningful way.  Yes, tools can tell us
> that the augmenting module is syntactically correct but whether or not
> it does what is says on the tin I find very hard to form a view on.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>;
> To: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>;; <ietf@ietf.org>;
> Cc: <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;; <teas@ietf.org>;;
> <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>;; <db3546@att.com>;
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 10:26 AM
>
> > Further thoughts on -16 (as my previous comments included below are).
> >
> > What is the status of Appendix B?  I find this a thorny question.
> > Appendices are usually regarded as not Normative, with a statement
> > called for when it is otherwise.  This is a YANG module which non-NMDA
> > servers will implement so that says it is Normative, to me.  On the
> > other hand, the world is going NMDA - I do not know how fast - so this
> > is more like Historic; or non-Normative?
> >
> > I do not know the answer but do know we can expect to see this several
> > times, so I am thinking that some thought and guidance from an Ops AD
> > would be valuable.
> >
> > IANA Considerations should have a
> >       reference:    RFC XXXX
> > for each module registered
> >
> > Additionally, my comments about the YANG module in the body of the
> > document apply to Appendix B and C namely
> > - [RFC ... looks wrong in a YANG module
> > - import without reference
> >
> > Does the YANG module in Appendix C need a Copyright statement?
> >
> > Should the YANG module in Appendix C be registered?  It took a while
> for
> > the IETF to see the need to define formally such things as
> > example.com
> > so I am thinking it probably should be lest we get many different
> > varieties in the wild.
> >
> > And I would like a Note to the RFC Editor asking them to update the
> > dates with the date of publication especially since there are five
> such
> > dates rather than the usual two.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "tom p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>;
> > To: <ietf@ietf.org>;
> > Cc: <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;; <teas@ietf.org>;;
> > <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>;; <db3546@att.com>;
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 6:01 PM
> >
> >
> > > Lou et al
> > >
> > > I note that the YANG module in this I-D has Reference statements to
> 20
> > > other RFC, which is good, but only one of the twenty appear in the
> > > References for the I-D, which I think is not good, and needs to be
> > > fixed.
> > >
> > > Also, some of the RFC which appear in Reference clauses of the YANG
> > > module appear in [square brackets] e.g. [RFC6001] which I think
> should
> > > not be there.
> > >
> > > In the same vein, there are imports of four other YANG modules but
> no
> > > indication as to which RFC they can be found in - again, I think
> that
> > > that needs fixing with a Reference statement.
> > >
> > > A quick pass suggests the missing references are to
> > > 1195 missing
> > > 3209 missing
> > > 3272 missing
> > > 3471 missing
> > > 3630 missing
> > > 3785 missing
> > > 4201 4202 4203 4206 all missing
> > > 4872 missing
> > > 5152 missing
> > > 5212 missing
> > > 5305 missing
> > > 6001 missing
> > > 6241 ok Norm
> > > 7471 missing
> > > 7752 missing
> > > 7579 missing
> > >
> > > Russ's comment about Section 1.1 does not seem to have been
> addressed.
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>;
> > > To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>;
> > > Cc: <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org>;; <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;;
> > > <teas@ietf.org>;; <db3546@att.com>;
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:40 PM
> > >
> > > > The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering
> > > Architecture and
> > > > Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'YANG
> Data
> > > Model
> > > > for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies'
> > > >   <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-15.txt> as Proposed Standard
> > > >
> > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> > solicits
> > > final
> > > > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > > > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-05-30. Exceptionally, comments
> > may
> > > be
> > > > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> > > beginning of
> > > > the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> > > >
> > > > Abstract
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >    This document defines a YANG data model for representing,
> > > retrieving
> > > >    and manipulating Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies. The model
> > > >    serves as a base model that other technology specific TE
> Topology
> > > >    models can augment.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The file can be obtained via
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/
> > > >
> > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via
> > > >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/ballot/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The document contains these normative downward references.
> > > > See RFC 3967 for additional information:
> > > >     rfc5212: Requirements for GMPLS-Based Multi-Region and
> > Multi-Layer
> > > Networks (MRN/MLN) (Informational - IETF stream)
> >
>
>