[Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 06 June 2018 20:39 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: teas@ietf.org
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9DE130FDB; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo@ietf.org, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, teas-chairs@ietf.org, lberger@labn.net, teas@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152831756015.6220.551593327209091162.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 13:39:20 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/zleRPuBXY0V6eAlrJDOKMC01RgQ>
Subject: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 20:39:21 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Alvaro for pointing out the specific considerations on the geolocation variables. This document has a large number (6) of authors; https://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.authlist implies that justification is needed for more than 5 authors. Section 3.4 I'm confused why the transitional TE link disappears once a normal TE link abstracting away the layer transition appears -- is there no longer potential to do layer transition at that node (e.g., to take a different path in the server layer network) once a layer transition is in use? Section 8 I'm not sure I understand why the te:templates tree is not called out as "sensitive" -- is it just the "template" nature? Lots of these look like things that could have detrimental impact if modified in an actual live instance -- ID, bandwidth, type, etc., so I mostly assume that it's just the templatey-ness, but don't quite understand how that works. There are a number of places where editorial attention would be beneficial; I only noted a small subset of them. One recurring theme is "<foo> is assigned with the <bar> unique ID", which might be more clearly phrased as "A <foo> is assigned a unique ID within the scope of <bar>". Some other specific items follow. Section 1 [...] There could be one or more TE Topologies present in a given Traffic Engineered system. The TE Topology is the topology on which path computational algorithms are run to compute Traffic Engineered Paths (TE Paths). nit: If there could be more than one, it seems grammatically improper to use the definite article "the" (without further qualification) to refer to them. Section 1.1 Customized TE Topology: Customized TE Topology is a custom topology that is produced by a provider for a given Client. This topology typically augments the Client's Native TE Topology. Path computational algorithms aren't typically run on the Customized TE Topology; they are run on the Client's augmented Native TE Topology. This text doesn't really help me tell the difference between the "Client's augmented Native TE Topology" and the "Customized TE Topology", which is the Client's Native TE Topology plus some unspecified augmentation (that is apparently different from the one used for path computation). Section 2 - Each TE Topological element has an information source associated with it. In some scenarios, there could be more than one information source associated with each topological element. editorial: I'd suggest replacing the last "each" with "any given", and maybe "has an" with "has at least one". Section 3.3 TE link is an element of a TE topology (presented as an edge on TE graph, arrows indicate one or both directions of the TE link). (I don't see any arrows in Figure 1.) [...] TE link is connected to TE node, terminating the TE link via exactly one TE link termination point (LTP). Even unidirectional links have a source and destination; presumably both of those are attributes of the TE link? Perhaps "for any given node" should be more explicit? Section 3.8 [...] From the point of view of a potential TE path LLCL provides a list of valid TE links the TE path needs to start/stop on for the connection, taking the TE path, to be successfully terminated on the TTP in question. nit: this could probably be reworded to be more clear, maybe: % From the point of view of usability in creating a TE path, the LLCL % provides a list of the TE links that would be valid path components % for paths involving the TTP in question. Section 3.10 is unique across all TE topologies provided by the same provider. The client layer LIPs and the server layer TTPs associated within a given Should that be "LTPs" instead of "LIPs"? Section 4.4 [...] maintain. For example, in addition to the merged TE topology depicted in the upper part of Figure 1, the client may merge the abstract TE Figure 1 was long ago and does not seem relevant. Was this supposed to be Figure 9 or Figure 10? Section 7 grouping connectivity-label-restriction-list { description "List of abel restrictions specifying what labels may or may not be used on a link connectivity."; list label-restriction { key "index"; description "List of abel restrictions specifying what labels may or may not be used on a link connectivity."; presumably "label" rather than "abel" (twice)? Another typo -- "speficied" for "specified" (also twice). And "souruce" for "source" (twice) Appendix C Are there really supposed to be 63 occurrences of the string "Attribute 11 for example technology" (i.e., with no "Attribute 1", "Attribute 2", etc.)?
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Xufeng Liu
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… xufeng.liu.ietf
- [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Teas] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Benjamin Kaduk