Thanks Joel for your feedbacks
We have just uploaded draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-21 with the text
changes proposed below
Thanks, Italo (on behalf of co-auhtors/contributors)
*From:* jmh.direct <[email protected]>
*Sent:* venerdì 16 gennaio 2026 19:25
*To:* Italo Busi <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
*Subject:* RE: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart
review
Yes, those changes address my concerns. In particular, the first
change nicely clarifies the scope.
Thank you,
Joel
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Italo Busi <[email protected]>
Date: 1/16/26 1:13 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20 ietf last call Genart
review
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]
*Cc:* [email protected];
[email protected]; [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]
Cc:[email protected];[email protected];[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
