IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 30 June 2017 12:03 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 DBA0D127286 for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 mEzNW4d9VTK8 for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3888126D73 for <l3sm@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DJM41852; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:02:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:02:57 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.25]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 20:02:53 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)" <jlindbla@cisco.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/al72SWIj7YEiowZPt9ZDOi6IwyWmAgAzDtwD//80ZEA==
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:02:52 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9A98EC7B@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9A97A1F7@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4C624736-109A-4B25-9B4D-11B04BDF652D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C624736-109A-4B25-9B4D-11B04BDF652D@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.78.218]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9A98EC7Bnkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.59563DF3.00EC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.25, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 8b451b64da6a4289db8dc6b2713d8a2e
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/_Bltbt0MAbTpwKadJEcZ2HofauE>
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 12:03:04 -0000

Thank Jan for quick feedback, We will fix mistake you raised in the next update.
Have a good vacation. :)

-Qin
发件人: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) [mailto:jlindbla@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2017年6月30日 18:02
收件人: Qin Wu
抄送: l3sm@ietf.org; Benoit Claise (bclaise); adrian@olddog.co.uk
主题: Re: [L3sm] I-D Action: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-00.txt

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