Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-05: Controller timeout

"Carey, Timothy (Timothy)" <timothy.carey@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 12 May 2015 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <timothy.carey@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E881B2C4F for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 q5z1aNmxFTpc for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A2DB1B2C4E for <lmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 06:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.63]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 39C88B97A0AEB; Tue, 12 May 2015 13:04:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70tusmtp1.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t4CD4nOQ019406 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 May 2015 09:04:49 -0400
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.10.167]) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 12 May 2015 09:04:49 -0400
From: "Carey, Timothy (Timothy)" <timothy.carey@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Thread-Topic: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-05: Controller timeout
Thread-Index: AdCMHecUFUgxoWRISVOQIyTHkXEC2AAnxEkAAATNJ5AAAJpsgAAH9ouw
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 13:04:49 +0000
Message-ID: <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77BA261858@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77BA2612C2@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <20150512100724.GC26662@elstar.local> <9966516C6EB5FC4381E05BF80AA55F77BA2616F5@US70UWXCHMBA05.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <20150512124209.GC41964@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20150512124209.GC41964@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/z6_cGswlYNnAj3s-maHeYym5k1M>
Cc: "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-05: Controller timeout
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 13:04:55 -0000

So does that now mean we need to have a operational status now for a scheduled task? I can see it now as attribute with values like: enabled, disabled, suppressed and errored or possibly a conditions object?

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 7:42 AM
To: Carey, Timothy (Timothy)
Cc: lmap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lmap] draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-05: Controller timeout

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:58:34AM +0000, Carey, Timothy (Timothy) wrote:
> Juergen,
> 
> So then we are saying that schedules (I think you mean scheduled tasks?) are operationally disabled and are reenabled with the controller is contacted.
> 
> We that would mean all scheduled tasks that are not related to controller communication - right? Since everything is a scheduled task now?

Yes, if in your implementation the communication with the controller runs as a scheduled task, you better do not disable it. I have added:

  Note that this will not affect the execution of actions that are
  essential to establish contact with the controller or that perform
  critical housekeeping functions
 
> As to the int vs unsignedInt - I don't necessarily care except that 
> one might ask what a meaning is for negative values unless you use 
> lower threshold constraint of 0. Also you lose have the range of the 
> timeout. What is the size of the int - 32 or 64-bit? My point is that 
> if it is 32bit you its timeout would be limited to like 9+ hours 
> (32767 seconds)
>

We address these questions in the YANG data model but I was hoping we can leave out this level of detail in the information model. The YANG model has this:

      leaf controller-lost-timeout {
        type uint32;
        units "seconds";
        description
	  "...";
      }

Note that 2^32-1 = 4294967295 seconds (which is approx. 136 years). You are calculating with 15 bits.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>