Hi Tom, Thanks for checking on PCEP-Yang.
> <tp> > I see no mention of pcep-yang which is one of the hundreds of I-D updated in > the prelude to the window closing for the meeting:-( I have looked at it > briefly. > It was part of the chairs slides #15 [https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/slides-109-pce-1-introduction-01]. In the PCE WG, we usually capture only the discussion points in our minutes. > Pagination; the IETF has abolished it. Those doing so expect us to have > short sections that are easy to reference; they are of course unaware of YANG > where a section can run unbroken for 50 pages. So, it behoves us to keep > sections short where that is not impossible. My take is that a section > should be half a page or less. It would be worth looking at the first six > sections to see if they can sensibly be divided. I would suggest that > wherever a page number is missing from the TOC then a change would be good > (except for YANG). > I am aware of that discussion. IMHO at this stage, we can look again at these sections and do a change only if it increases the readability. > There is a lot of 'if pce or pce and pcc'. I wonder if a YANG doctor could > find a more elegant expression. > > Likewise but more so for me, there is a lot of must have a value for these > states or else must be zero with some fairly hard to follow IMHO combinations > of 'and' 'or' 'not'. I would have thought it simpler to have a 'when' such > that the leaf is absent from the model (as opposed to present and MBZ) if the > states are not suitable. > > Again, for me, I find the repeated use of 'domain' confusing. There is a > YANG convention of list plural leaf singular so /domains/domain/ as opposed > to /domain/domain/ but even so there is a lot of domain which I would prefer > to have slightly differing names. > We did an early yang doctor review some time back, the authors are suggesting another one soon. We can point them to your email as well and see what they suggest. > Finally, is PCE a routing protocol? There are conventions for routing > protocols such as OSPF about defining an identity and where to augment which > this does not follow suggesting that it does not qualify. > No, PCE is not a routing protocol and thus does not follow the same convention. Thanks! Dhruv > Tom Petch > > > Hi WG, > > Please find the minutes for the PCE WG session - > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-109-pce/ _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
