IETF LC Genart review: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20

[italobusi]

Document: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update
Title: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ.

(My apologies for the lateness of this review.)

Document: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-20
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2025-12-23
IETF LC End Date: 2025-12-09
IESG Telechat date: 2026-01-08

Summary: This document is basically ready for publication as a proposed
standards RFC. There is one wording issue that I believe should be addressed.

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
I believe that this was mentioned in other reviews, and discussed, but I am
still having trouble with it, Section 3.1 says "The "ietf-te-types" module
(Section 4) contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of
any specific technology or control-plane instance." Except that section
3.1.1 then defines multiple MPLS specific identities. Which are clearly
technology specific. If you have a narrower meaning of "specific
technology" in mind, please use wording that conveys that meaning.

Nits/editorial comments: N/A

See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-et8CDAh2abRwXekC0tgTj0qNZs/

[italobusi]

• @ALL: is the session-attributes-flags really specific to RSVP-TE?

Note that the session-attributes-flags identities used by:

• path-attribute-flags type in ietf-te-types, used only by
  • grouping record-route-state in ietf-te-types, used only by the TE tunnel I-D

[italobusi]

2026-01-16 TE Call

OLD

The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-plane instance.

NEW

The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains TE types that are commonly used across multiple TE technology-specific modules.

---

The union of the session-attributes-flags and lsp-attributes-flags provides the list of all the path attributes that can be applied to any type of TE path although originally defined for RSVP-TE SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object and RSVP-TE LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.

Proposed updates to the YANG model:

OLD

identity session-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags.";
}

identity lsp-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for LSP attributes flags.";
}

NEW

identity session-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the path attributes flags as defined for the RSVP-TE SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.";
}

identity lsp-attributes-flags {
description
"Base identity for the path attributes flags as defined for the RSVP-TE LSP_ATTRIBUTES object.";
}

---

• @italobusi propose this rephrase to the mailing list

[italobusi]

• @italobusi propose this rephrase to the mailing list

See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/izA7w67KiMp7jBBZ3iHVaYKzucA/