search

tsaad-dev / te

IETF TE Tunnels YANG models
16 stars 19 forks source link

First comment from Adrian about APS #224

Closed italobusi closed 1 year ago

italobusi commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/tsaad-dev/te/blob/ed79571cd8ab9de1474ab61f9521de684cfcb70b/ietf-te.yang#L1323-L1332

Why does this text talk about the APS state machine when 8776 makes reference to 4427? Possibly the references in 8776 are wrong and should have pointed to 7271 and 8234. If you intend those meanings of APS then you should simply add references to your document.

(Raising an Errata Report against 8776 for this would be a bonus)

[TS]: Added reference to RFC7271 and RFC8234. [TS/OPEN-ISSUE]: to track other suggestions.

See previous discussion in #216

italobusi commented 1 year ago

Checking the current definition of the identity lsp-protection-state in RFC8776, I have noted that there is no mention of APS nor any reference:

https://github.com/tsaad-dev/te/blob/ed79571cd8ab9de1474ab61f9521de684cfcb70b/ietf-te-types.yang#L1601-L1604

Let's discuss whether it is better to:

  1. update the identity lsp-protection-state in RFC8776 to mention APS and reference G.808.1
  2. align the description of leaf lsp-protection-state in ietf-te to align with RFC8776

If option 2, is chosen, the code can be changed to something like:

       leaf lsp-protection-state {
         type identityref {
           base te-types:lsp-protection-state;
         }
         config false;
         description
           "The reported protection state controlling which
            tunnels is using the resources of the protecting LSP.";
       }
italobusi commented 1 year ago

2023-03-17 TE Call

Agreed for option 2

Rephrase the description as:

       leaf lsp-protection-state {
         type identityref {
           base te-types:lsp-protection-state;
         }
         config false;
         description
           "The protection state of the LSP.";
       }