Orange Restricted From: Lsr <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Acee Lindem Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 11:33 PM To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> Cc: Loa Andersson <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang Speaking as a WG contributor: Hi Les, I think a simpler name is better - perhaps ietf-isis-feature-support.yang with YANG prefix isis-fs would be better. Which brings me to my next and more important point… Like carbon neutrality, everyone at the LSR WG meeting who had an opinion thought such a YANG model would be operationally useful. However, I think the level of granularity is key. [Bruno] +1 I agree that the level of granularity is key. I’d rather call for a significant granularity (but I’d welcome any pushback). Personally, I don’t see why per TLV granularity would not be ok: it’s ok to implement which is more work, so just listing the supported TLV and sub-TLV should be doable. In any case, operators, pre-sales and support engineers will likely need this information some day. So let’s just fill it once for all and have it available for all persons. I’d would even call for more granularity. E.g. for RFC 5130, for “32-bit Administrative Tag Sub-TLV 1”, “On receipt, an implementation MAY consider only one encoded tag, in which case, the first encoded tag MUST be considered and any additional tags ignored. » To me, if the WG bothered making such granularity at the feature/TLV/implementation level, we need such granularity at the reporting level. And that’s not theoretical, I had to check that for a project a month ago. At best, it’s indicated in the vendors documentation, so the data is there, so let’s make it friendly to digest. At worst, we need to involve expensive people 😉. If we want less granularity, let’s do less granularity in spec (everything is MUST) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5130#section-3.1 Thanks, --Bruno I believe that having a separate data node for each TLV/sub-TLV as was done in the example ietf-isis-pics-sr-mpls.yang module is way too granular to be useful. Rather, the YANG reporting should be done at the feature level. Also, does a distinction need to be made as to whether the IS-IS node supports the feature or both supports it and has it enabled (as would be the case for non-backward compatible features)? Thanks, Acee On Nov 16, 2023, at 15:30, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Loa - I agree with you that simply "IS-IS Support" may not be the best choice. Although, the meeting minutes have not yet been posted, as I recall my response to Tony Li's suggestion of "IS-IS Support" was "Yes - something like that." The draft authors have not yet discussed this - but we will and share the proposed new name. Other suggestions welcomed. Les -----Original Message----- From: Lsr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 2:06 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Lsr] Question on draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang Working Group, During the presentation of draft-qgp-lsr-isis-pics-yang there was a rather strong opposition in the chat against using the ISO-term "PICS" in an IETF document. I think the term "Support" was suggested (excuse me if I missed something), but I'm not that impressed, and would rather like to see something like - "Supported Protocol Aspects". /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Senior MPLS Expert [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Bronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64 _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
