Title of RFC8776-bis

[italobusi]

Title

While I understand that the TEAS WG is limited to MPLS technology, the title of
this IETF draft is misleading as it it not Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering but more about Common YANG Data Types for *MPLS-based* Traffic Engineering.

This also applies to the module names as they should include "mpls" in the name
as they are specific to MPLS and in no way ietf-te-types, or did I miss
something?

Even if RFC 8776 had the some issue, this is not a reason for repeating the
confusion.

More broadly, I find extremely sad that there is IETF-wide effort to have a
real common data model across all TE control planes :-(

[italobusi]

• See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Cax7Fg0ygeiefGXuWrxoYNkRx6U/

[italobusi]

2026-01-09 TE call

• See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Cax7Fg0ygeiefGXuWrxoYNkRx6U/

From Rakesh:

As specified in [RFC9603], the term "LSP"
used in the PCEP specifications would be equivalent to an SRv6 path
(represented as a list of SRv6 segments) in the context of supporting
SRv6 in PCEP using SRv6 path setup type.

[italobusi]

• See: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/9vqsinQCtD87rvnXYUOkgj2SwKs/