Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

In line gets a bit messy with this webmail
________________________________________
From: Camilo Cardona <[e-mail]>
Sent: 29 September 2022 11:57

First of all, thanks a lot for your thoughtful review of the model. Some answers  next:

On 26 Aug 2022, at 11:23, tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

From: GROW <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 25 August 2022 15:25

I support adoption.

The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in other working groups for a few years. :-)

<tp>
Yes but with room for improvement :-(  Nothing to stop adoption  but ..

References seem to lack 1191, 8529, 8671, 9069, tcp-client-server, tcpm-yang; references tell me whether or not I should expect to understand an I-D so they are my second port of call in a review.

<JCC> We’ll take a look at those


one identifier has an underscore - legal but generally a bad idea, easy to misread - hyphen-minus is better.

<JCC> I couldn’t find the identifier in the model (the text does reference “all_peers” erroneously, we’llf fix that one. We’ll use hyphen-minus  in the identities.
<tp2> I refer to hypen_or_minus, bmp_session etc

ip address uses the format with a zone; is this intended?

<JCC> It was not indented. I guess that having the zone ip makes sense for corner cases, but I have no experience with ip zones. Does anybody have an educated answer?

<tp2> this is one for the WG.  I was pointing out that zone is the default, you need nozone if you do not want the zone.  zone is only ever local and for some that is key - printers, for most not needed..

XXXX by convention means  this I-D  - here it is used to mean a number of I-D none of which is this one.  Suggest  AAAA, BBBB, CCCC etc

BCP14 boiler plate is included but all appearances of 'must' and 'should'
are lower case AFAICT.

revision date is OOD

<JCC> ack to the 3 previous points

identity identifiers get a bit cumbersome - e.g. bmp-ni-types-all-ni-idty which is about sending updates which I would not have guessed from the identifier:-)

<JCC>  Searching for that discussion in opsawg you mentioned, I realised that the final OPSAWG draft removed the idty from the identities. Let us iterate on this. Naming is always tricky, specially with this concepts that are not simple, so we might need a couple of attempts.

<tp>  Nah, naming is easy - just do not overload an identifier with all the possible semantics especially those that are already explicit higher in the hierarchy e.g.
container bmp_session {
             uses bmp-session-options!
I suspect that most instances of 'bmp-' are redundant - what else is in the model? - and if you are already in that part of the model that deals with session, then session is too and so on!
The identifiers of identity are an exception since they often are stand-alone with no hierarchy so bmp is helpful and a small number, 2-3(-4), of short words, acronyms or syllables I think better than lots of two-letter.

Tom Petch

'waits for the connection to start the connection'  ?

port 27716 is one that can be assigned - better to use one from the Private Range

<JCC> Ack the the previous two points

More generally, the I-D is heavily dependent on the BGP one, which makes sense, but I am conscious that a previous effort to model BGP, albeit some time ago, never made it to RFC.

<JCC> The BGP model is still in active development, as far as I know. And yes, since we will rely on that model, we hope that one continues to become a RFC in not so many years...

Tom Petch


-- Jeff


On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders <job=[e-mail]<mailto:job=[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi GROW,

At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.

This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
internet-draft should be adopted.

Title: BMP YANG Module
Abstract:
 This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
 Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
 a refresh of the session of a BMP station.

The Internet-Draft can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/

Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
draft!

WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.

Kind regards,

Job

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow