Re: [Teas] teas-yang-te wasRe: TEAS WG Document Status Reports yang-te

Tarek Saad <> Mon, 27 July 2020 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490123A0E1D; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QovTA8DgSjPX; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A15A3A0E09; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w12so3207115iom.4; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:accept-language:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=T0XuDu0HuTi53DZ5GSoZmKKFieo3jy2a7b8+QCVscfU=; b=UomikECuV4ZFl8c7XCT4yBXtOT/sNzLPor8DUX4+vQYxGG3vVe/hhjCcAY9CeSiaZs 6SYOeDOP9ZNRfEjuaoUc32t1OreS+jkVEM6u5amAS2O9Evjpg4luKgmI5EI24e/beoAt bE+dNgj4mFZFhhSEjgSRcmN5xpUgtjKWpNv1FPRABmdNkXnMahbdkZVBuicuJ+hxyoVL Lb7k/E4ENSRKR/tZ3bYBVlTf/21SXAuRFh3KeU19hWebW5bB7LM3ngXxQ+MFqScZKApx DulKddPMkvllk4oADShjCQ/bh7mSh4aUdLiKlyTgmYtPZcnBcstgCTaDiKtiQhChRUty fviA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:accept-language:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=T0XuDu0HuTi53DZ5GSoZmKKFieo3jy2a7b8+QCVscfU=; b=EMMBW0tf9icU7hC/BSmO8/zL7FwOiwnl9L5wCR6nMgqO0t++ku08vqNjOMJjWGAHfh 1/SnMUxLWqLUPalK/9QObq8QdluDRpCIDR7ny9j+BME7+8SBOLpczyC6BHh6TQKf3/S5 7x1JJ1E+CGSZVRc+Z9BjO2MYsRJCT8xl6tc2KJd2soI+mUY9OBVT+0Zcxy9nAwf1FhtF 3tlyZG2yK3pnOSZoaHBH9/kpjZpr34oEbqKCr1NuJmMPD5g8wQhtOrrsAiutORGZh+uF MKGDsXr9osBBfQer2/IEQb3kI82cjgXt81I5DT65ZASh99piqtcxRSi8RHcLj/WJ75YR +oeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5339R6SxIM2SqQ3u79ax3bg0hbPYDqP97AEzhknkJ4Y87MfcSVVl ldRnsb0WCuic34lrFgF3ECBb8nmO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxiA+ICklFrFA80Oz+HSoJLY7fDRH+1O6Edw/ntEENAclZY/YFpwKDdmgSi+enETPP1WOl30g==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8417:: with SMTP id i23mr23780430ion.132.1595854933425; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2603:1036:4:9e::5]) by with ESMTPSA id w22sm1693857ioc.24.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Jul 2020 06:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <>
To: tom petch <>, Tarek Saad <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] teas-yang-te wasRe: TEAS WG Document Status Reports yang-te
Thread-Index: AQHWHUl3BsCy7YzPKkeFSc6lOHpbBg==
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:02:11 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] teas-yang-te wasRe: TEAS WG Document Status Reports yang-te
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:02:18 -0000

Thanks Tom for providing your continued feedback and valuable comments. We have published revisions -24 and -25 of  ID: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te that addresses your comments. 
Please see inline below (look for [TS]).

On 4/28/20, 6:40 AM, "Teas on behalf of tom petch" < on behalf of> wrote:

    From: Teas <> on behalf of tom petch <>
    Sent: 27 April 2020 17:29
    Subject: Re: [Teas] TEAS WG Document Status Reports  yang-te

    this I-D is BIGG so I expect that I will be noticing things for months to come so here are some more

    Editors/Authors are listed in four places, top, bottom and both YANG modules and the lists differ

    IANA Considerations has no Registrant Contact for the uri
[TS]: fixed in rev -24.

    tree diagram lacks reference to RFC8340
[TS]: Addressed in rev -25.

    when origin-type != egress
    Applicable to ingress LSP only
    is a mismatch - when will allow transit
[TS]: Fixed the description in rev -24.

    enum link-down
    "Link-up flooding trigger"
[TS]: fixed the description in rev -24.

    " List of areas .. is advertised in"
    mismatch, I think the list name is wrong
    (stupid autocorrect:-)
[TS]: fixed typo in rev -24.

    1. draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-23
    Current Status:

      *   Version -21 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments

      *   Authors addressed all comments in version -23 (already uploaded).
      *   Team meeting regularly to address open issues – tracked on
      *   Will publish new version -24 before asking for WGLC
    Open Issues:
      *   None.
    Next Steps:.

      *   Authors will followup with YANG Dr. to make sure no further comments
      *   Will request a Working Group Last Call after completing the above

    I think that there is quite a bit wrong with this I-D from an administrative viewpoint some of which may be more debatable than others.

    It is VERRY  BIGGG which makes it hard to digest which for me is not helped by having 52 pages of uninterrupted tree diagram at the start (or is that intended to discourage anyone from going further?).  I see other authors taking two variations.  One is to put the entire module tree diagram at the end as an appendix.  The other is to include bite size chunks with sections of text.  You sort of do that s.3 but for me there is too little tree diagram in those sections.  Look for example at draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm which is only 122 pages but which I think gets a better balance in its section 6 of interspersing text with tree diagram and making it possible to follow.

[TS]: thanks for the feedback. We have revised the draft in rev -24 and included new sections that describe the main parts of model and their respective bit-size chunk sub-tree. We still included the full tree in a separate section for completeness.

    Less debatably,
    - the prefix in the YANG does not match prefix in IANA Considerations.
[TS]: fixed in rev -24.

    - the Security Considerations are out of date..
[TS]: Addressed in revision -25.

    - the device module would be better In a separate section
    - s.4 lists [4872] twice
[TS]: fixed in rev -24.


    Tom Petch

    2. draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-11
    Current Status:

      *   Version -10 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments

      *   Authors published version -12 which addressed all outstanding comments
      *   Authors followed up with YANG Dr. reviewer on closing comments
    Open Issues:

      *   None
    Next Steps:

      *   Proceed to WGLC

    3. draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-te-07
    Current Status:

      *   Version -07 was reviewed by YANG Dr. and received comments
    Open Issues:

      *   Authors working on addressing YANG Dr. comments
    Next Steps:

      *   Folllow-up with YANG Dr. reviewer to close on comments
      *   Proceed to WGLC after addressing

    4. draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-mpls
    Current Status:

      *   Authors discussing augmentation of this module for MPLS-TP
      *   A new module and model is expected
    Open Issues:

      *   Close on MPLS-TP modeling
    Next Steps:

      *   Publish a new revision
      *   Ask for YANG Dr. review

    Teas mailing list

    Teas mailing list