YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-22
Yes
(Deborah Brungard)
No Objection
(Adam Roach)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 20 and is now closed.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2019-06-11 for -21)
Sent
(1) Section 4.2. Per “The data model proposed in this document can be used to retrieve/represent/manipulate the customized TE Topology depicted in Figure 8b” this statement struck me as odd because aren’t all of the topologies depicted here supported with the modeling language? (2) Section 4.2. Per “Although an authorized client MAY receive a TE topology with the client ID field matching some other client”, why would this happen? Couldn’t this potentially leak customized TE information across clients? (3) Section 5.9. Per “When two or more templates specify values for the same configuration field, the value from the template with the highest priority is used”, is the highest priority 0 or 65535 (since priority is a uint16)? The text doesn’t indicate whether the highest priority is a largest or smallest number. (4) Editorial Nits -- Section 3.4. Missing word. s/3.3/Section 3.3/ -- Section 4.2. Typo. s/-connectivit-/-connectivity-/ -- Section 4.2. Editorial. Why does “single-abstract-node-with-connectivit –matrix topology” use hyphens and “border_nodes_connected_via_mesh_of_abstract_links topology” use an underscore? -- Section 4.2. Typo. s/Although a/Although an/ -- Section 5.6. Typo. s/cooresponding/corresponding/
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2019-06-12 for -21)
Sent
I had the weirdest sense of deja-vu when reading this (on a plane, while jet-lagged) -- and then noticed that it was a returning item :-P
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2019-06-10 for -21)
Sent
Thank you all for the work put into this document and the advanced ASCII-art pieces. I have only a small nit (feel free to ignore). == NITS == -- Section 3 -- I would suggest to expand TTP and LTP before using them in Figure 1 even if they are defined later in the text (I appreciate that space is limited on the picture). Related to this, in section 6, TTP and LTP are expanded again ;-)
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -20)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -21)
Not sent