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]>
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>.
(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]
