IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [L3sm] I-D Action: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-00.txt

"Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)" <jlindbla@cisco.com> Fri, 30 June 2017 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <jlindbla@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F8F12EA52 for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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
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 VUEMpVxrWcmV for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6EB8129C0B for <l3sm@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 03:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9572; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498816944; x=1500026544; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=vT9I+Buomm26bFN9h7FoOin79qPB92Hy2roxGgJ+S3s=; b=TKIZJoTZGSnV+8nLCqkjRDMahM1SPdo7lqjeerPGoamGLf4IvNIL9MML fduGCp0nvsSsIvfiCcNb9gS3PXVxfywy3o3Efw83UPz9jjTgNpznGvn94 4PZ5VtEwN3JyWIkiut39AmNqaE71Igbhd0e4C+4hLiJiVve90/lf/mMdl c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DiAAAfIVZZ/5JdJa1dGgEBAQECAQEBAQgBAQEBgm9qY4EVjX6iOoUrghEshXACgxU/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRkGeRACAQgOODIlAgQOiVBkELYFi0EBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYMng0yBYSuBbYEMiC2CMQWeegKHQow6ggyFSopElSwBHziBCnUVSRIBhQUXgWaJE4ENAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,285,1496102400"; d="scan'208,217";a="264282077"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jun 2017 10:02:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (xch-rcd-006.cisco.com [173.37.102.16]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5UA2NmG007505 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:02:23 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) by XCH-RCD-006.cisco.com (173.37.102.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:02:23 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-004.cisco.com ([173.36.7.14]) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com ([173.36.7.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:02:23 -0500
From: "Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)" <jlindbla@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
CC: "l3sm@ietf.org" <l3sm@ietf.org>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [L3sm] I-D Action: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS60/al72SWIj7YEiowZPt9ZDOi6IwyWmAgAzDtwA=
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:02:23 +0000
Message-ID: <4C624736-109A-4B25-9B4D-11B04BDF652D@cisco.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9A97A1F7@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9A97A1F7@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.147.40.86]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4C624736109A4B259B4D11B04BDF652Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/93NO4JmhJqC3MXdjdfjgW-Y_O2M>
Subject: Re: [L3sm] I-D Action: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: l3sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: L3VPN Service YANG Model discussion group <l3sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l3sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:02:27 -0000

Qin,

Hi,L3SMers:
Thank Jan for excellent YANG doctor review and valuable inputs based on Service Model deployment experience.
Thanks for L3SM design team to engage in the discussion on the list and help address all of comments.
Here is the initial version of RFC8049bis.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-00
Jan, please review it and let us know if you have any additional comments.

I had a quick scan and I think it all looks good. Tried all the examples. Pretty much all of them still have a lot of dependencies on data not provided and omit many mandatory fields. We can live with that.

I found two examples with minor mistakes in them.

Line 4597:

      <?xml version="1.0"?>
      <l3vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc">
        <vpn-services>
          <vpn-service>
            <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
          </vpn-service>
        </vpn-services>
        <sites>
          <site>
            <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
            <routing-protocols>
              <routing-protocol>
                <type>static</type>
                <static>
                              <cascaded-lan-prefixes>
                  <ipv4-lan-prefixes>
                  <lan>192.0.2.0/24</lan>
                  <next-hop>203.0.113.1/32</next-hop>

The next-hop address is modeled as inet:ipv4-address, so the above value is invalid. Should be: "203.0.113.1"

Line 5070:

     <?xml version="1.0"?>
     <l3vpn-svc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-l3vpn-svc">
       <vpn-services>
         <vpn-service>
           <vpn-id>VPNA</vpn-id>
         </vpn-service>
       </vpn-services>
       <sites>
         <site>
           <site-id>SITE1</site-id>
           <service>
             <qos>
               <qos-classification-policy>
                 <rule>
                   <id>SvrA-http</id>
                   <match-flow>
                     <ipv4-src-prefix>192.0.2.0/24</ipv4-src-prefix>
                     <ipv4-dst-prefix>203.0.113.1/32</ipv4-dst-prefix>
                     <l4-dst-port>80</l4-dst-port>
                     <protocol-type>tcp</protocol-type>

The leaf I believe the example author is thinking of is called <protocol-field>. There is no leaf called protocol-type at this location, even if the type of the leaf protocol-field is called so.

The Swedish vacation season is on; I won't have time for more reviews until the beginning of August. Have a great summer! ;-)

Best Regards,
/jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email