Hi Joel,
The authors and contributors discussed this issue today and the proposal is to
update the text in section 3.1 as follows:
OLD
The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains common TE types that are
independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-plane instance.
NEW
The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains TE types that are commonly used
across multiple TE technology-specific modules.
Regarding the definition of the session-attributes-flags, we noted that the
union of the session-attributes-flags and lsp-attributes-flags provides the
list of all the path attributes that can be applied to any type of TE path
although originally defined for RSVP-TE SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object and RSVP-TE
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object and we would propose the following changes to YANG:
OLD
identity session-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags.";
}
identity lsp-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for LSP attributes flags.";
}
NEW
identity session-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the path attributes flags as defined for the RSVP-TE
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.";
}
identity lsp-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the path attributes flags as defined for the RSVP-TE
LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.";
}
Would these changes address your concerns?
Thanks, Italo (on behalf of co-authors/contributors)
From: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>
Sent: giovedì 15 gennaio 2026 21:06
To: Italo Busi <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart review
At the very least, it would help if you would mark which things are included
for compatibility even though they don't fit the paradigm.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/15/2026 1:33 PM, Italo Busi wrote:
Hi Joel,
For the session-attributes-flags, I will further check with the co-authors
since it is also coming from RFC 8776, and we had not discussed it in the
context of RFC 8776-bis
For the exceptions, these are due to mistakes in RFC 8776 so we have two
options:
1. Deprecate or obsolete these definitions in YANG and re-defined them in
other technology-specific YANG models
2. Keep these definitions in YANG and mark them as exceptions due to
historical reasons
We adopted the latter option not to cause impacts to existing implementations
of RFC 8776 but the intention is to keep them as exceptions to the rule
Italo
From: Joel Halpern <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: giovedì 15 gennaio 2026 17:06
To: Italo Busi <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart review
Just because they are there before does not justify claiming they are
technology agnostic.
And there seem to be a scattering of ones that are new and not agnostic, such
as session-attribute-flags
"Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags.";
which is clearly specific to RSVP-TE. As are a number of entries which follow
that. RSVP-TE is clearly a specific technology, even if it can be used for a
few different sub-cases.
Yours,
Joel
On 1/15/2026 10:58 AM, Italo Busi wrote:
Hi Joel,
Thanks a lot for your review and comment.
I am not sure there are MPLS technology specific identities in section 3.1.1
since, as far as I am aware of, they are also used/applicable to other
technologies (e.g., OTN).
There are some technology-specific derived identities for
switching-capabilities and lsp-encoding-types which are an exception and we
have added some text to indicate this exception.
The reason for the exception is that these identities have been already defined
in RFC 8776 and we have decided to keep them here to maintain backward
compatibility with RFC 8776.
Is there any other metric that you think are MPLS technology-specific, besides
these exceptions?
Thanks, Italo
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Halpern via Datatracker <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: martedì 23 dicembre 2025 21:32
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart review
Document: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update
Title: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the
IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ><https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.
(My apologies for the lateness of this review.)
Document: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2025-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2025-12-09
IESG Telechat date: 2026-01-08
Summary: This document is basically ready for publication as a proposed
standards RFC. There is one wording issue that I believe should be addressed.
Major issues: N/A
Minor issues:
I believe that this was mentioned in other reviews, and discussed, but I am
still having trouble with it, Section 3.1 says "The "ietf-te-types" module
(Section 4) contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of
any specific technology or control-plane instance." Except that section
3.1.1 then defines multiple MPLS specific identities. Which are clearly
technology specific. If you have a narrower meaning of "specific
technology" in mind, please use wording that conveys that meaning.
Nits/editorial comments: N/A
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
