Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-24

Yes

Jim Guichard
Mohamed Boucadair

No Objection

Andy Newton
Deb Cooley
Éric Vyncke
Gorry Fairhurst
Gunter Van de Velde
Ketan Talaulikar
Mahesh Jethanandani
Mike Bishop
Roman Danyliw
(Erik Kline)
(Orie Steele)
(Paul Wouters)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 19 and is now closed.

Jim Guichard
Yes
Mohamed Boucadair
Yes
Comment (2025-12-16 for -19) Sent for earlier 
Hi Italo, Aihua, Xufeng, Tarek, and Igor, 

Thank you for the effort put into this bis and specifically the meticulous work to call out all changes and their rationale. The reasoning for not following some of the RFC8407 guidance are well-explained. Likewise, explanations about why an IANA-maintained module is not used for PCE errors are reasonable.

Thanks also to Sergio for the OPSDIR review. I trust the authors will follow-up.

I reviewed this document several times in the past, so I only have nits that I will submit as PR for the authors convenience. The NMDA mention inside the modules (and also in the document) is useless. The new guidance is to include a justification only when there is major deviation.

Cheers,
Med
Andy Newton
No Objection
Deb Cooley
No Objection
Comment (2025-12-31 for -20) Not sent 
Thanks to Tero Kivinen for their secdir review.  I agree with his assessment of the HUGE number of referenced RFCs. (16 references for 1 definition seems excessive)
Éric Vyncke
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2026-05-20 for -23) Sent 
Thanks for the discussion to address the major blocking points of my ballot:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/tMTDQbdBdXHTOA6OAstCohlMXro/

I was about to ballot a non-blocking ABSTAIN because the title itself is still somehow ambiguous IMHO, but I fear that an ABSTAIN would block the document as the IESG has rotated since the first ballot, hence my NoObjection.
Gorry Fairhurst
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Ketan Talaulikar
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2026-04-15 for -22) Sent 
Thanks to the authors for addressing my DISCUSS and most of my COMMENTS. I have noted two issues that I feel should be addressed, but I will let the AD decide how he wants to handle it.
Mike Bishop
No Objection
Comment (2026-01-07 for -20) Not sent 
I support Mahesh's DISCUSS position.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2026-01-06 for -20) Not sent 
Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review
.
I support the DISCUSS point of Mahesh Jethanandani, also identified by the GENART review, to clarify the relationship of this model to MPLS.
Erik Kline Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2025-12-12 for -19) Not sent 
# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-19
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

* For anyone else looking to review a diff, this URL was a helpful
  starting place:

    https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc8776&url2=draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-19&difftype=--html
Orie Steele Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -20) Not sent 

                            

                        
                    

                
            
                
                    

                        

                            Paul Wouters Former IESG member
                        

                        

                            
                            No Objection
                            
                        

                    

                    

                        

                            

                                No Objection 
                                
                                    (2026-01-05 for -20)
                                
                                
                                    
                                         Sent
                                    
                                
                            

                        

                        
                            

                                
I agree with the SecDir readability comments noted by Tero.