Re: [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09.txt
Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 05 August 2020 11:17 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 036713A1138 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 04:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 2ddpQZ0lAvB3 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 04:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DFDE3A1057 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2020 04:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.100.94;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: 'tom petch' <ietfc@btconnect.com>, idr@ietf.org
References: <005401d6659d$31ad4c40$9507e4c0$@ndzh.com> <133E5D36-A696-4314-8588-7992E52D190B@gmail.com>, <007101d66759$938f7150$baae53f0$@ndzh.com> <AM7PR07MB62485BC88F847F9EFE88CB1AA04D0@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB62485BC88F847F9EFE88CB1AA04D0@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 07:17:03 -0400
Message-ID: <017c01d66b19$f25af510$d710df30$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE+1+XUdv18vKGZHbbpBPNUlsIwVQJKrXvjAcmXYWYBh3J3Xaoro+ug
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200805-2, 08/05/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/z4yfeu9Q8kubvBvxbRvqz7gSINQ>
Subject: Re: [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09.txt
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: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 11:17:14 -0000
Tom: Thank you for the comments. The history of the BGP model has a long history and it a large project. Your feeling is probably correct.. but we'll try to address these issues. The sub-modules were the wisdom at the start of this work. As to the missing references, we'll ask John to hold the start of WG LC until we address your comments. This model is also out at the Yang Doctors to review prior to start of WG LC. I am on vacation this week and most of next week. I saw your emails and I wanted to make sure you got a response. I'll dig in once I'm back full time. Thanks for pointing things out. Sue -----Original Message----- From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 5:31 AM To: Susan Hares; idr@ietf.org Subject: some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09.txt This I-d needs a significant amount of work; for me it has a slight flavour of a large project that has been subcontracted out and now needs (more) systems integration. I note that it uses submodules extensively, not something I can recall seeing in an IETF module. The YANG references 32 documents - good - of which 11 are missing from the I-D references - not good. scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp is an import and so MUST be a Normative (think about it; TCPM just published an I-D that started life 10 years ago, while NETCONF started work on modelling TCP many years ago and have yet to reach WGLC). Do submodule names need registering? " Names of submodules published in RFC streams [RFC4844] MUST be assigned by IANA; see Section 14 in [RFC6020]." That's another 12 entries needed in IANA. There are 11 include by date which means that more recent versions will not be picked up and that there are 11 places where the RFC editor must insert the right date, probably something they have not done before. YANG allows freedom over the choice of prefix but exercising that freedom is not always helpful. 'bgp' is the obvious choice for the main module. Elsewhere, with main and ancillary modules, a common pattern is for the main to be e.g. axy and the ancillary axy... Two letter prefix are best reserved for widely imported modules - interfaces comes to mind. 'bt' will be a familiar abbreviation to many in the IETF while 'bp' will have a resonance for those living near the Gulf of Mexico. A table of imports and prefix used aids comprehension. derived-from-or-self suggests that you expect other protocol to derive an identity from bgp; what do you have in mind? action to clear neighbours can be invoked by anyone; perhaps a security exposure. 'These ... operations ...' seems incomplete. Overall, I wonder at the use of submodules. Greater size, greater complexity, more difficult to review, probably more mistakes; what benefit offsets this? From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Sent: 31 July 2020 17:42 To: idr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-09.txt
- [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-… Susan Hares
- [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-0… tom petch
- Re: [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-… tom petch
- Re: [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mod… Scharf, Michael
- Re: [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mod… tom petch
- Re: [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mod… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-… tom petch
- Re: [Idr] IPR call prior to WG LC for draft-ietf-… John Scudder
- Re: [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mod… tom petch
- Re: [Idr] some thoughts on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-mod… tom petch