Subject: [Teas] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 13:04:55 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-16: No Objection

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-teas-yang-te-topo/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found myself wondering what the last sentence in

  - TE Topology may not be congruent to the routing topology (topology
     constructed based on routing adjacencies) in a given TE System.
     There isn't always a one-to-one association between a TE-link and
     a routing adjacency. For example, the presence of a TE link
     between a pair of nodes doesn't necessarily imply the existence of
     a routing-adjacency between these nodes.

was saying about what IS implied between these nodes. I'm guessing, but this
draft seems to assume a relatively low level amount of experience with traffic
engineering, so I can imagine readers who could benefit from a word or two of
explanation.

---

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 22:30:07 -0400

Hi Spencer,
Thanks for the comments. This section has been re-worded a bit in the
updated version to clarify. It is reasonable to ask for more explanations,
for this section, and for some others. The challenge is that a word or two
might not be sufficient. The TEAS Working Group has discussed such issues,
and decided to adopt another document
*https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling>*,
to describe the use cases, model usages, terminologies, and examples, in
greater details. Another draft,
*https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo>*, also
discusses such a case.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 11:34:20 -0500

Hi, Xufeng,

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 9:30 PM Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> and decided to adopt another document *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling
> greater details. Another draft, *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo

(Keeping in mind that I'm a No-Obj ballot, so we're just talking ... if
you're able to point to this work ("to learn more, see ..."), I'd think
that would be helpful without you trying to describe something available in
another document, which would waste your time at best, even if your summary
in this document was perfect.

Do the right thing, of course.

Spencer

---

From: Xufeng Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 14:42:42 -0400

Hi Spencer,

We agree that the references would be helpful, and we have added the
statement to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-18.

Thanks,
- Xufeng