Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 30 May 2019 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA82E120161 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=h4qxjCIL; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=bXbJqN2Q
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kV8dPsFiRBmp for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 065BB1200FF for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16671; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1559244965; x=1560454565; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=gPUjzG496zvhq3AMDhI1KUW6loncYIxgCxRph47cz9c=; b=h4qxjCILwlJJetWjfke7eioFuJ3KosNx7mEw/cQ5tdHMC2IbMcsYfq3M NYz4ZpLfQqet3jYXDGODec3958gXOpNPfOJrLAQBpkjhmtJf/M0o65A1X nSyAhITMLTDeAoGzzyCdQi8E/Oas8+1uEel/nvrBFcVlfvzAkuuskseAG c=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AgmKgBReFtY8Om7y88iNduDLYlGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwKUD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFl?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+effhYiESF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BxAACaL/Bc/4wNJK1lHAEBAQQBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGBUgYBAQsBgQ4vUANpVSAECygKhAqDRwOOboIyJZJchFKBLoEkA1QJAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BDAEBIwoCAQGEQAIXgmYjNQgOAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVKAQEBAQMSER0BATg?= =?us-ascii?q?PAgEGAg4DAwECKAMCAgIwFAkIAQEEARIigwABgR1NAx0BAgyOY5BgAoE4iF9?= =?us-ascii?q?xgS+CeQEBBYJHgkMYgg8DBoE0AYtVF4F/gREnDBOCHi4+gmEBAQIBgX4NCYJ?= =?us-ascii?q?UgliOFIRnIJVVCQKCDYY7jGgUB5ZYjHeHB48CAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFRATWBWHA?= =?us-ascii?q?VGiEqAYJBgg+DcIUUhT9yAYEojE4BgSABAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,532,1549929600"; d="scan'208,217";a="284125415"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 May 2019 19:36:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (xch-aln-006.cisco.com [173.36.7.16]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4UJa3FM011554 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 30 May 2019 19:36:03 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (173.36.7.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:36:02 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 30 May 2019 14:36:01 -0500
Received: from NAM04-CO1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 30 May 2019 15:36:01 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=gPUjzG496zvhq3AMDhI1KUW6loncYIxgCxRph47cz9c=; b=bXbJqN2QDfpA5hg0AhsMaMrwYNFqv3CGnN8T3q0ACS/60bPOuxRHmhdR4BbtGp8XEZcybK8smUq3mTExCInt/6JGxWSTiz7eZBd1mLjKdX3qGS4xhSa0MO9Hdin+nMKLkjyYsi8XVcVLFQLkxHJoPkYfZ2Tm3dXZPG09D0QaDDk=
Received: from SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.93.24) by SN6PR11MB2542.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (52.135.90.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.20; Thu, 30 May 2019 19:35:59 +0000
Received: from SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3006:a080:19fa:623e]) by SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3006:a080:19fa:623e%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.021; Thu, 30 May 2019 19:35:59 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts
Thread-Index: AdUWjd4LLVLjcSULSP2B6/v6f+ghjQAb4KEA
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 19:35:59 +0000
Message-ID: <EF4A3766-6148-4AD8-A40B-34709200644F@cisco.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49588FB@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49588FB@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.88]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 801a78ba-5d30-47f5-ef84-08d6e5360afa
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:SN6PR11MB2542;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: SN6PR11MB2542:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN6PR11MB25422E4A44756C396ECFCA7DC2180@SN6PR11MB2542.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 00531FAC2C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(189003)(199004)(6486002)(76116006)(81156014)(9326002)(73956011)(6436002)(82746002)(66946007)(8676002)(66574012)(81166006)(229853002)(6512007)(8936002)(64756008)(102836004)(256004)(83716004)(316002)(6246003)(66446008)(53936002)(606006)(110136005)(86362001)(71190400001)(71200400001)(5660300002)(2616005)(91956017)(26005)(2906002)(186003)(476003)(66066001)(6306002)(68736007)(53546011)(446003)(14454004)(11346002)(54896002)(486006)(36756003)(66476007)(478600001)(25786009)(7736002)(66556008)(3846002)(33656002)(2501003)(99286004)(76176011)(6506007)(6116002)(236005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:SN6PR11MB2542; H:SN6PR11MB2845.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: AdL1DC0ccOs5xzMx2yen2AteGUD+FACJb4AmbyFLP1DVdJCguv2gSBHDhfsNmNw2NqAhzy824RR4HC0eQKCDT9zCEu6ChI7/sQOc9J963AT80KC1A/yZyQBoqgT4wsoxTiTJ+iOukOpZnmuUrqQ93BAUzDnLXz/jZhLbWIXuBiNDhpF0SPrtVJ12IQSOTktb3OA5JbIRfpleR6VQgedn2FT3yuQ2Ng3qWkfRV1XWSBW1cxuRf5Vfqye8Whs4x/GE/G3TsV7+Gl+BbvUax+A2ndbE9z7dTK38vjY1n7YMeZGyPOChyuLfHe/BnU+8vxw6TpdArlbuyJer7f33389G+pycGFA2fG5J+IqKpupoZOExd9zaLH/nNYGfG5bTHvOM5q+aw3SgIH3X/fk5XLlEaF1Ubqa6nVUAXD+wVHECfUk=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EF4A376661484AD8A40B34709200644Fciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 801a78ba-5d30-47f5-ef84-08d6e5360afa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 May 2019 19:35:59.3226 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: acee@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN6PR11MB2542
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.16, xch-aln-006.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qnJ1bxZMEApNtq606hYIcjhgbNU>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 19:36:07 -0000

Hi Qin,

Are you sure? It wouldn’t make sense to move the BGP RIB to the rtgwg-yang-rib-extend draft since the draft augments the global RIB with protocol independent extensions. I also wouldn’t put the BRIB in a separate draft. If I separated anything out, it would be the policy constructs, ietf-bgp-policy, since these augment a separate model.

Thanks,
Acee

From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 10:21 PM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

Acee, I know their difference, I just thought whether BGP RIB should be factored out as a separate draft or move to rtgw-yang-rib-extend since from draft name or title, I can not see rtgw-yang-rib-extend only focus on multi- next-hop support.
The current BGP base model is a little bit heavyweight to me.

-Qin
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2019年5月23日 20:42
收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; idr@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

Hi Qin,

Are you familiar with any BGP and/or router RIB implementations? The global RIB defined in RFC 8349 and the BRIB defined in the draft BGP YANG model you reference are very different things. The BGP RIB (BRIB) should remain under BGP as it is in the existing draft.

Acee

From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>>
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 2:37 AM
To: IDR List <idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>>
Subject: [Idr] Augmenting the ietf-routing in two separate drafts

Hi, authors and all:
It is not clear to me why we define augmentation of the ietf-routing in two different draft, one is in the draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01 which augment common rib building block in ietf-routing with multiple next-hop support,
The other is in the BGP YANG model (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05#section-2..3<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-05#section-2.3>) which augment ietf-routing with BGP RIB specific parameters.
I would suggest to factor out BGP RIB into a separate draft or draft-ietf-rtgwg-yang-rib-extend-01 and define lightweight BGP model and move forward.
Let me know if you have disagreement on this.

-Qin