Return-Path: 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 4B9D8C180B4A; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:11:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.107 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sehekvK6qdh3; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20722C16940E; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dfa48f505a3so253985276.1; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:11:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1718046712; x=1718651512; darn=ietf.org; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L+Q/vajBbq5W9nGdLTvvsgOdjF4W1sZHbF69UxNcb20=; b=HAj8p7biHrJSautfEOFUjl0Pr8IlfylAkWMvdg3V+AmHRi/eUGuy7ap8gVTWPm6Ml3 QZlF+d5lPvINuEV9KJbCOa4ZG1ce3JQxypkofEqPothrmzkKol+IB/nGzW2ATudkJasj wmBfjGLaho+MndN7vyD2ZhGwOCcIZX46WLktSu7gPw29kapWtbRMuAE/sH3WEsEd/NM/ T9McN2WR/V+hbYBNtKSbIVjRHN5g08PExbNN+hjEg/fXneAk+nmc3DUAA6pruaXJw+z+ lwJ0jgdxSz4XdbQiISDA38I6ydBfgAEljaoYnGUVCpX0fMlyE1g8dAzUKfuiTVBlRNBX YfvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718046712; x=1718651512; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L+Q/vajBbq5W9nGdLTvvsgOdjF4W1sZHbF69UxNcb20=; b=fOR1I+FkAEn7nYhrZYU9q4BBCeLHksWqFazNBK3C32EdOktwQv3r/3fH0D6Z/gHWFP FRJ/Pp4PZV1yuQo4hFX/upE3gGoE5qQuJl1C/MtvNnK43jgFqow1PLge5g52HpjajoS4 2EWbbQpYoBm+4kOVl4+/eJj0lTneFRILnUmYqPm2Dh1Ay+xJQsqY2GESmJNIN0u3qNtn yfGHjThS8rImMrZItdPsZFlqhfNehxhIE3QnGiA3Xc7xUZH5xERXPhgomEjTt3Pqpgpm r48CQAnXU+kxxy5FolTU0DyEks5AiyFWp/3UtsfKMHDGg0G3jwLxsy+IoLiyugI9+KUS pPfA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWjXuHwk5p7IBx+3gIUeBPcqcTD1b8vdWlc95A+JGOk8dCADWhKylUczRtNp4/8dpLCLRWTEagFeD4k0ez0EgTU6un3Wpg28H+VnfReuCyj7/N/7NYX4YHrWdfWCKvVdzlD5iXIg7a7aTtoN0/DFB+q4t92FjmlHLL5en0mDic1+3HAJeBILwpgtO9ZwHCK X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwKtn81MLn6DTh70F98qQX0qsN66TrL5sa60eECFp++3FDoNwFc 3Xw/2wmYjm+I5I+jury4ECfhZ8uTvDMxT22V+b7U4MFfljeHrmlliJVnYw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH+6kYOfYLNXbl0db+solcsrP6NSYCHfEcZLNEvoZs7P7L3z5p31omL81A/LrDEukkWUrwbtg== X-Received: by 2002:a25:ada3:0:b0:dee:5dc4:59cf with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dfaf65df13fmr10668430276.26.1718046711822; Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple ([2620:0:ce0:108:4ca3:e70b:6115:4cc8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 3f1490d57ef6-dfae53d7e48sm1755189276.60.2024.06.10.12.11.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:11:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Mahesh Jethanandani Message-Id: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED17A037-4622-4E28-B725-B77A9B601841" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.15\)) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:11:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: To: Dhruv Dhody References: <171757068446.34933.7846006565304880228@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.15) Message-ID-Hash: E2TKTXAJEVEERBGI2CMNTBDZDOYFSPDC X-Message-ID-Hash: E2TKTXAJEVEERBGI2CMNTBDZDOYFSPDC X-MailFrom: mjethanandani@gmail.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: "Wubo (lana)" , ops-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang.all@ietf.org, Last Call , teas@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BTeas=5D_Re=3A_=5BOPS-DIR=5DRe=3A_Opsdir_last_call_review_of_dra?= =?utf-8?q?ft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-26?= List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --Apple-Mail=_ED17A037-4622-4E28-B725-B77A9B601841 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Dhruv, > On Jun 10, 2024, at 12:58 PM, Dhruv Dhody = wrote: >=20 > Hi Mahesh, >=20 > On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 9:47=E2=80=AFPM Mahesh Jethanandani = > wrote: > Hi Dhruv, >=20 >> On Jun 7, 2024, at 2:57 AM, Dhruv Dhody > wrote: >>=20 >> =20 >> >=46rom this sentence, it seems that LTP refers to the LTP in the = native TE >> topology, because in YANG, PE is defined as the PE node in the native = TE >> Topology. While in the YANG model and the Examples in B.1. VN JSON, = it looks >> like "ltp" is the LTP within the abstract node, correct? If so, could = the YANG >> path be modified to a relative path of the abstract node? >>=20 >>=20 >> Dhruv: Since the 'te-node-id' is not a key, it is not possible to = change to relative path like "path = "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node[tet:te-node-id=3Dcurrent()/../abstract-no= de]/nt:termination-point/tet:te-tp-id";" >> Instead I will update the description.=20 >=20 > I am not able to understand this comment. I understand that you cannot = provide a path like you mention above, but at the same time, Wubo does = make a good point. Which LTP is being referred to? The one in the = underlying layer or in the abstract layer? >=20 >=20 > Dhruv: To handle this comment from Bo, I updated the description of = this leaf to explicitly say abstract-node.=20 >=20 > leaf ltp { > type leafref { > path "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/" > + "nt:termination-point/tet:te-tp-id"; > } > description > "A reference to Link Termination Point (LTP) in the > abstract-node."; > reference > "RFC 8795: YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) > Topologies"; > } >=20 > Is there anything else that I should be doing?=20 It is entirely possible that I have not understood the model, so do = educate me if necessary. By providing an absolute reference, and using the XPath that you have, I = get this to be a reference to the underlying layer, not the abstract = layer. But maybe the XPaths in the underlying layer are the same as in = the abstract layer, in which case I am wrong. Regardless, by using a = relative XPath, you will stay in the layer that you are currently in = without any confusion. Won=E2=80=99t you? >=20 > Thanks!=20 > Dhruv > =20 >=20 > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanandani@gmail.com Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com --Apple-Mail=_ED17A037-4622-4E28-B725-B77A9B601841 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi = Dhruv,

On Jun 10, 2024, at 12:58 PM, Dhruv Dhody = <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi = Mahesh,

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 9:47=E2=80=AFPM = Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dhruv,

On Jun 7, 2024, at 2:57 AM, Dhruv Dhody = <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

 
>=46rom this sentence, it seems that LTP refers = to the LTP in the native TE
topology, because in YANG, PE = is defined as the PE node in the native TE
Topology. While = in the YANG model and the Examples in B.1. VN JSON, it looks
like "ltp" is the LTP within the abstract node, correct? If = so, could the YANG
path be modified to a relative path of = the abstract node?


Dhruv: Since the 'te-node-id' is not a key, it is = not possible to change to relative path like "path = "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node[tet:te-node-id=3Dcurrent()/../abstract-no= de]/nt:termination-point/tet:te-tp-id";"
Instead I will update the = description. 

I am not able to understand this comment. I understand that = you cannot provide a path like you mention above, but at the same time, = Wubo does make a good point. Which LTP is being referred to? The one in = the underlying layer or in the abstract layer?


Dhruv: To handle this comment = from Bo, I updated the description of this leaf to explicitly say = abstract-node. 

           leaf = ltp {
             type = leafref {
              =  path "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/"
  =                 + = "nt:termination-point/tet:te-tp-id";
      =        }
        =      description
      =          "A reference to Link Termination Point = (LTP) in the
                = abstract-node.";
          =    reference
          =      "RFC 8795: YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering = (TE)
              =   Topologies";
          =  }

Is there anything else that I = should be = doing? 

It is entirely possible that I have not understood the = model, so do educate me if necessary.

By providing an absolute reference, and using the = XPath that you have, I get this to be a reference to the underlying = layer, not the abstract layer. But maybe the XPaths in the underlying = layer are the same as in the abstract layer, in which case I am wrong. = Regardless, by using a relative XPath, you will stay in the layer that = you are currently in without any confusion. Won=E2=80=99t = you?


Thanks! 
Dhruv
 

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com
=


Mahesh = Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com






= --Apple-Mail=_ED17A037-4622-4E28-B725-B77A9B601841--