HI Eric, See inline.
On 1/14/21, 8:46 AM, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <[email protected]> wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-29: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document even if I am balloting ABSTAIN, this is useful piece and it should really be improved to fix my ABSTAIN reasons so that I could actively support it. Read my ABSTAIN ballot as "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am not going to stand in the way of the others" per https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ . Please note that I am neither a YANG expert nor a segment routing one (hence my ABSTAIN rather than a DISCUSS). Based on title, I was expecting this document to be generic and to see companion YANG models for the MPLS and IPv6 data planes but it seems that this document also augments *only* the MPLS one. The asymmetry does not look good to me... Are the authors/WG sure that the IPv6 YANG model can also be specified by augmenting this model (draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang-00 is still a -00 ...) and relying on types defined in ietf-segment-routing-common ? Especially when noting that the authors are different ? Yingzhen and I have had several meetings with the SRv6 YANG model editors and are confident that there is alignment. The YANG model for SR is really short (mostly meaningless except for one more tag in the namespace tree): "module: ietf-segment-routing augment /rt:routing: +--rw segment-routing" To be honest, I strongly dislike the fact that there is no common element between the YANG modules for MPLS and IPv6 data planes inside ietf-segment-routing. I admit that I am not an SR expert but I would have expected more common elements: policies, routing protocols, SID, link bundles, There are many ways to factor the IETF YANG models and this one includes the base segment routing support. It seems you are not in touch with the other routing and segment routing models. For example, the routing protocol segment routing extensions are augmentations to the routing protocol models (in alignment with the vendor implementations). Thanks, Acee ... even if the leaves could be instantiated as generic types to be augmented later. One additional regret is that the document shepherd write-up is really really short. But it includes the most important element (to my eyes): the WG feedback & consensus. Regards, -éric _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
