Re: [Lime] AD review: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 01 September 2017 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAEE132F26 for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.49
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.49 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 A_lZ84yzmq3e for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 04:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D31D1132EED for <lime@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 04:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15897; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1504264987; x=1505474587; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=jhPe9SI9Yge2Y5nsPyZcr8kwh6YPjohwriglE/HlMvw=; b=fmWGfnxKCVl70BYTXX7QOhSRp8zbMH/QbtmquhcAl6Y2SLWW6BgZxT4c 8goGpVlgq82IbbCymYbO+MAYGyOwoEtCYWtg5knZPLizFfWi5bfNrXkmh UNaLJ3nL79cXYO6MmO4wp7fftLu6nFKIPUQsc2FHOn1T6DWpXtFmYJ+X6 c=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,457,1498521600"; d="scan'208,217";a="657170881"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Sep 2017 11:23:05 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v81BN4Ub010171; Fri, 1 Sep 2017 11:23:04 GMT
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>
Cc: "Carl Moberg (camoberg)" <camoberg@cisco.com>, Jan Lindblad <janl@tail-f.com>
References: <da8af3c8-67f2-64e3-d9b7-d592db2d5eb5@cisco.com> <43b1244d-f834-4251-b930-4f2cb66d774c@cisco.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AAEB827@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <6e526577-160b-01c4-a67d-00d4f64b4906@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 13:23:03 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AAEB827@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------54E7E1AD8530A9F931B0BFEF"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/86IAosepIncOY5NXOd6MvfAY1tw>
Subject: Re: [Lime] AD review: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." <lime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lime/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:23:10 -0000

Thanks Qin,

See in-line (I removed the addressed points).
>
> Thank for valuable comments, your comments have been addressed in 
> v-(06) with other comments on the list:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods/
>
Good, but I still see some warnings at 
http://www.claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.html
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:*Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] *代表 *Benoit Claise
> *发送时间:*2017年8月11日23:12
> *收件人:*lime@ietf.org
> *抄送:*Carl Moberg (camoberg)
> *主题:*[Lime] AD review: draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-methods
>
> Dear all,
>
> Here is my AD review.
>
> - " This document presents a retrieval method YANG Data model for 
> connectionless OAM protocols" is this right?
>
>    rpc path-discovery {
>          description
>            "Generates path discovery as per RFC7276 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7276>.";
>
>    rpc continuity-check {
>          if-feature coam:continuity-check;
>          description
>            "Generates continuity-check as per RFC7276 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7276>.";
>
> AFACT, the RPC triggers an "on-demand" (as opposed to proactive 
> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam, to use the 
> draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam term) OAM mechanism and 
> retrieves the results directly.
> " This document presents a retrieval method YANG Data model for 
> connectionless OAM protocols" makes it sound like "polling" the 
> results, which could also be "proactive". You should improve the text
>
Please let me know how this has been addressed.
It seems that this draft is not only about a retrieval, but also an 
activation, in case of "on demand". I believe we should make it clear.
If we need a 5 min call (maybe I don't express myself correctly), don't 
hesitate to let me know.
>
>
> After hours spent on the two LIME drafts ...
> If the continuity-check RPC is really "on-demand", why do we have the 
> session-type-enum as input?
>
> rpc continuity-check {
>     if-feature "coam:continuity-check";
>     description
>       "Generates continuity-check as per RFC7276 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7276>.";
>     input {
>       container destination-tp {
>         uses coam:tp-address;
>         description
>           "Destination test point.";
>       }
>       uses coam:session-type;         <==============
>       leaf source-interface {
>         type if:interface-ref;
>         description
>           "Source interface.";
>       }
>
> From the other draft (why, btw?)
>
>     grouping session-type {
>       description
>         "This object indicates the current session
>          definition.";
>       leaf session-type-enum {
>         type enumeration {
>           enum "proactive" {
>             description
>               "The current session is proactive";
>           }
>           enum "on-demand" {
>             description
>               "The current session is on-demand.";
>           }
>         }
>         default "on-demand";
>         description
>           "Session type enum";
>       }
>     }
>
> This should always be "on-demand", right?
>
>
Regards, Benoit