Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[tom petch]

From: Pce  on behalf of Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: 26 September 2022 08:51

Hi WG,

The adoption call is concluded and we have a new WG I-D. Thanks to those who 
provided feedback and comments. Note that the SPRING WG documents referenced by 
this I-D have been updated and posted.


Well, refreshed and a reference to an I-D is now a reference to an RFC 
(probably enforced by tools) but updated?  A stretch - all the usual things 
that are wrong with YANG modules are still wrong so my concern that we may get 
stuck, waiting but I agree with adoption, we have to press on and hope:-(

Tom Petch

Authors,

Please post a -00 version with no content change. Please handle comments 
received in -01.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 2:39 PM Dhruv Dhody 
mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>> wrote:
Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi WG,

The adoption call is concluded and we have a new WG I-D. Thanks to those
who provided feedback and comments. Note that the SPRING WG documents
referenced by this I-D have been updated and posted.

Authors,

Please post a -00 version with no content change. Please handle comments
received in -01.

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 2:39 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons -
> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you
> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[Dongjie (Jimmy)]

Hi WG,

I’ve read this document and support its adoption. YANG module is an important 
component for the deployment of PCEP SRv6.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Li Cong
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 11:56 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

Hi WG,

This draft provides a PCEP-SRv6 YANG module,  which is very useful for the SRv6 
deployment.

I support the adoption of this draft.

Best regards,
Cong Li

发件人: Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com>>
日期: 2022年9月2日 星期五 下午5:09
收件人: "pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>" mailto:pce@ietf.org>>
抄送: 
"draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-y...@ietf.org<mailto:draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-y...@ietf.org>"
 
mailto:draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-y...@ietf.org>>
主题: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07
重发发件人: mailto:alias-boun...@ietf.org>>

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[Boris Khasanov]

Hi Dhruv and all, I read the draft and support its adoption.  There were several important comments (i.e. from Gyan and others) which should be considered later on (including those dependencies).I am more concerned about the corresponding  work on ietf-pce-multipath and especially on ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang which is frozen for quite long time already. SY,Boris 02.09.2022, 12:10, "Dhruv Dhody" :Hi WG,This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/ Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks!Dhruv & Julien,___Pce mailing listPce@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[tom petch]

From: julien.meu...@orange.com 
Sent: 08 September 2022 16:13

Hi Tom,

Thank you for sharing your views. I agree with your generic point about
dependency. This question is very legitimate when requesting
publication, especially if there are concerns about the maturity of some
references (note however there's no universal rule to address that kind
of situation).

After a quick scan, here's the situation we're facing for the considered
I-D:
- SRv6 YANG expired this summer (with a typo in its expiration date) and
is referenced for 2 attributes;


That I-D is an import and so a Normative Reference and one without which the 
pcep I-D cannot work; this is not just a question of nice to have information 
but will it work at all which is why, having slept on it, I decided to oppose 
so that  others can see where we are heading!

Tom Petch 


- SR Policy YANG expired 1 year ago and is referenced for one attribute.

Please keep in mind that we aren't running a WG LC, just an adoption
poll. In other word, I don't see your point on references as a blocking
issue that would really prevent the WG from adopting this topic as a
work item and using this I-D as a document base.

Cheers,

Julien


On 08/09/2022 10:14, tom petch wrote:
> Thinking some more ...
> 
> From: Pce  on behalf of tom petch 
> Sent: 07 September 2022 12:32
>
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
> Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
> work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
>
> 
> Oppose.
> It is those expired references.   We have I-D that have been sitting in the 
> RFC Editor queue waiting for their references to catch up for 1108 days - 
> yes, three years - and in one case, the referenced I-D has changed so that 
> the first document is no longer valid and will have to be taken back into the 
> WG to be revised, if anyone is still around who is familiar with it and 
> willing to work on it.
>
> With hindsight, such I-D should have been held and not forwarded to the IESG, 
> or not adopted in the first place.
>
> Here, I am not familiar with the state of the spring WG and do not know if 
> and when those expired I-D will progress.  A last revision of April 2021 with 
> an I-D that has plenty that needs fixing does not look promising.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> 
> The challenge I see is the SR references, one is RFC9256, the others, 
> spring-sr-policy-yang and spring-srv6-yang, are expired; not a good starting 
> point..
>
> The 'when' clauses use absolute form of the path which means that the when is 
> satisfied if there is anything meeting this anywhere in the tree, not just in 
> this path of the tree; if the latter is wanted, then the relative form is 
> required
>
> MSD type could do with a better reference - pce-segment-routing-ipv6 points 
> to RFC8491 but that only sets up an IANA registry which contains many more 
> entries so I think the reference has to be to the IANA registry.
>
> 'Add NAI' looks like an unresolved issue
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>


_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.


___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[julien.meuric]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for sharing your views. I agree with your generic point about 
dependency. This question is very legitimate when requesting 
publication, especially if there are concerns about the maturity of some 
references (note however there's no universal rule to address that kind 
of situation).


After a quick scan, here's the situation we're facing for the considered 
I-D:
- SRv6 YANG expired this summer (with a typo in its expiration date) and 
is referenced for 2 attributes;

- SR Policy YANG expired 1 year ago and is referenced for one attribute.

Please keep in mind that we aren't running a WG LC, just an adoption 
poll. In other word, I don't see your point on references as a blocking 
issue that would really prevent the WG from adopting this topic as a 
work item and using this I-D as a document base.


Cheers,

Julien


On 08/09/2022 10:14, tom petch wrote:

Thinking some more ...

From: Pce  on behalf of tom petch 
Sent: 07 September 2022 12:32

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.


Oppose.
It is those expired references.   We have I-D that have been sitting in the RFC 
Editor queue waiting for their references to catch up for 1108 days - yes, 
three years - and in one case, the referenced I-D has changed so that the first 
document is no longer valid and will have to be taken back into the WG to be 
revised, if anyone is still around who is familiar with it and willing to work 
on it.

With hindsight, such I-D should have been held and not forwarded to the IESG, 
or not adopted in the first place.

Here, I am not familiar with the state of the spring WG and do not know if and 
when those expired I-D will progress.  A last revision of April 2021 with an 
I-D that has plenty that needs fixing does not look promising.

Tom Petch


The challenge I see is the SR references, one is RFC9256, the others, 
spring-sr-policy-yang and spring-srv6-yang, are expired; not a good starting 
point..

The 'when' clauses use absolute form of the path which means that the when is 
satisfied if there is anything meeting this anywhere in the tree, not just in 
this path of the tree; if the latter is wanted, then the relative form is 
required

MSD type could do with a better reference - pce-segment-routing-ipv6 points to 
RFC8491 but that only sets up an IANA registry which contains many more entries 
so I think the reference has to be to the IANA registry.

'Add NAI' looks like an unresolved issue

Tom Petch

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce




_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[tom petch]

Thinking some more ...

From: Pce  on behalf of tom petch 
Sent: 07 September 2022 12:32
From: Pce  on behalf of Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: 02 September 2022 10:09

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.


Oppose.
It is those expired references.   We have I-D that have been sitting in the RFC 
Editor queue waiting for their references to catch up for 1108 days - yes, 
three years - and in one case, the referenced I-D has changed so that the first 
document is no longer valid and will have to be taken back into the WG to be 
revised, if anyone is still around who is familiar with it and willing to work 
on it. 

With hindsight, such I-D should have been held and not forwarded to the IESG, 
or not adopted in the first place.

Here, I am not familiar with the state of the spring WG and do not know if and 
when those expired I-D will progress.  A last revision of April 2021 with an 
I-D that has plenty that needs fixing does not look promising.

Tom Petch


The challenge I see is the SR references, one is RFC9256, the others, 
spring-sr-policy-yang and spring-srv6-yang, are expired; not a good starting 
point..

The 'when' clauses use absolute form of the path which means that the when is 
satisfied if there is anything meeting this anywhere in the tree, not just in 
this path of the tree; if the latter is wanted, then the relative form is 
required

MSD type could do with a better reference - pce-segment-routing-ipv6 points to 
RFC8491 but that only sets up an IANA registry which contains many more entries 
so I think the reference has to be to the IANA registry.

'Add NAI' looks like an unresolved issue

Tom Petch

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[tom petch]

From: Pce  on behalf of Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: 02 September 2022 10:09

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.


The challenge I see is the SR references, one is RFC9256, the others, 
spring-sr-policy-yang and spring-srv6-yang, are expired; not a good starting 
point..

The 'when' clauses use absolute form of the path which means that the when is 
satisfied if there is anything meeting this anywhere in the tree, not just in 
this path of the tree; if the latter is wanted, then the relative form is 
required

MSD type could do with a better reference - pce-segment-routing-ipv6 points to 
RFC8491 but that only sets up an IANA registry which contains many more entries 
so I think the reference has to be to the IANA registry.

'Add NAI' looks like an unresolved issue

Tom Petch

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[Gyan Mishra]

This draft is very useful for operators deploying SRv6 and I support
adoption.

Should the Yang model include all SRv6 endpoint behaviors defined in RFC
8986 SRv6 programming?

Also should the draft include RFC 9252 SRv6 BGP overlay service and
transposition scheme details as well as SRv6 load balancing?

As well should the draft include SRv6 compression Next uSID and Replace
G-SID endpoint behaviors?

Thanks

Gyan

On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 5:10 AM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons -
> Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you
> willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
-- 



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *



*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[Luc-Fabrice Ndifor Ngwa [ MTN Cameroon ]]

Hi WG,
This document adds the PCEP-SRv6 YANG module to the PCEP-YANG Structure, which 
is important for SRv6 deployment. Support its adoption

From: Dhruv Dhody 
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 10:09 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-y...@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the MTN organization. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
content is safe.

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[liupeng...@outlook.com]

Hi All,

This document provide a PCEP-SRv6 YANG module, which could help the 
configuration and deployment of SRv6. I support the adoption.

Regards,
Peng Liu(CMCC)


liupeng...@outlook.com
 
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: 2022-09-02 17:39
To: pce
CC: draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07
Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls! 

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[duzongp...@foxmail.com]

Hi all,
 
I've read the draft. It is useful for the deployment of SRv6, and I support 
the WG's adoption of it.
 
Best Regards
Zongpeng Du



duzongp...@foxmail.com & duzongp...@chinamobile.com
 
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: 2022-09-02 17:39
To: pce
CC: draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang
Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07
Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls! 

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[Chengli]

HI WG,

I support the adoption as an author.

This should be adopted by the PCE WG because this is a PCEP related extension 
draft.

Thanks,
Cheng


From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com]
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 5:09 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-y...@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

[Zhuangshunwan]

Hi Dhruv & Julien & WG,

I've read this draft. This is a very useful document, and I support the WG's 
adoption of it.

Best Regards,
Shunwan


From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com]
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 5:09 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-y...@ietf.org
Subject: WG Adoption of draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07

Hi WG,

This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang-07.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-pce-pcep-srv6-yang/

Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / 
Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to 
work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.

Please respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.

Please be more vocal during WG polls!

Thanks!
Dhruv & Julien
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce