Hi Michael,
From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 8:21 AM To: wangzitao <[email protected]>; Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]>; RTGWG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; 'rtgwg-chairs' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: RTGWG adoption of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types Hi Michael, From: wangzitao <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Friday, December 9, 2016 at 5:22 AM To: Acee Lindem <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, Routing WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, 'rtgwg-chairs' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: RTGWG adoption of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types Hi Jeff, Sorry for late response. I review the document again, and the types we can reusing are: route-distinguisher; multicast-source-ipv4-addr-type; multicast-source-ipv6-addr-type. Note that for naming consistency with the existing ietf-ip-types types, I have proposed changing: multicast-source-ipv4-addr-type->ipv4-multicast-source-address multicast-source-ipv6-addr-type->ipv6-multicast-source-address And potential type which we need to use in LIME are: tunnel-id, ip-mulitcast-group-address, lsp-id, system-id. I see we cold pick up the definitions from your models. [Xufeng] tunnel-id and lsp-id are currently also defined in ietf-te.yang. We need to discuss whether to keep it in te-types or in routing-types. Also, why do you define lsp-id as a string, where the current relevant RFCs specify it as uint16? Why do you specify system-id as URI? Is it used to identify the router? If so, why not use router-id? Thanks, Acee Hi Acee, You are right, the lower-case identifiers are good for us. Best Regards! -Michael 发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2016年12月7日 5:18 收件人: Jeff Tantsura; wangzitao; RTGWG 抄送: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'rtgwg-chairs' 主题: Re: RTGWG adoption of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types Hi Michael, Jeff, Actually, I’ve found these definitions in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-02.txt. One point, I see that some of the types in this draft are mixed case. Unless I heard a good reason not to, we will stick with lower-case identifiers consistent with RFC 6021 (existing YANG types RFC). Comments? Thanks Acee From: rtgwg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 1:59 PM To: wangzitao <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, Routing WG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, 'rtgwg-chairs' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: RTGWG adoption of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types Hi Michael, Thanks for detailed feedback, Would be grand, if you could send the authors a list of commonly used types that in your opinion should be included. Thanks! Cheers, Jeff From: wangzitao <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 01:54 To: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, RTGWG <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, 'rtgwg-chairs' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: RE: RTGWG adoption of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types Hi RTGWG, I have read this document and I believe it useful and valuable. And yes, I support to adopt it. Otherwise, some types defined in this model can used by LIME WG’s “ <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/lime/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam/> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam” and “ <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/lime/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods/> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods”. As the lime model’s coauthor, I’d like to reuse your types, update lime model to keep it synchronized. Best Regards! -Michael 发件人: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Jeff Tantsura 发送时间: 2016年12月1日 6:15 收件人: RTGWG 抄送: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ; 'rtgwg-chairs' 主题: RTGWG adoption of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types Dear RTGWG, The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-routing-types. The draft has been presented in Seoul, and found of interest for wg. Please indicate support or no-support by December 15, 2016. IPR: If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to this email. of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. Thanks, Jeff & Chris
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
