Re: [Teas] Comments on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types

[Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Matt,

Please, see my further responses in-line.

Igor

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Hartley [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 12:51 PM
To: Igor Bryskin
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types

Igor,

Thanks for the reply. Snipped most things (I assume you'll do mark-ups
where appropriate) but a couple of follow-ups:

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:26 AM Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> p26: identity lsp-protection-unidir-1-to-1: description is "LSP protection
> '1+1 Unidirectional Protection'", but that's inconsisent with the name. I'd
> expect this to be for 1:1 protection, not 1+1. Or if it is for 1+1, the
> name should be ...1-plus-1, shouldn't it? Same for the bidir one below.
>
> IB>> Correct.
>
OK - so is that going to be changed? And if so, how? In particular, are you
going to have a separate identity for 1:1, or is that considered to be just
a special case of 1:N and covered by that one?

IB>> We will have separate identities for 1+1 and 1:N, with the latter covering 1:1 as a special case


> p33: identity route-usage-type has route-exclude-ero as an option. Is that
> intended to cover XROs too?
>
> IB>> Yes
>
OK, but please make this clear in the description.
IB>> We will


> p34: identity te-optimization-criterion: Can't an optimization criterion
> be anything that can be used as a metric?
>
> IB>> Yes, in many cases path metrics and path optimization criteria are
> the same, but we do not assume that these are necessarily the same things