Re: [Lsr] AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 01 July 2019 22:58 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8541200CE; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 header.b=DHQvqNNc; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=YY4aEdYw
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 uNW1UBUgpS-z; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3937120186; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2012; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562021925; x=1563231525; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=0iRpS+4OtlgGidVeg2HV90xInAsRlTKjSTiB21ijXJg=; b=DHQvqNNcy3ACK5gjo9YZDJLG3WelDvdNmcxF/k7G17cUEhLfHzXlLP3h nkyiRDHcvrmdAxZc7PENXQ8oFxUovzffuPEgWSM+iwIBTShdP1k92BS9o OwJl2cEiPSEUKNANPtx1nv9gyurays7DK84EN+U9Id3eti8McNYhutFu/ c=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A3UXKiRdKxekBj3+n5956uHX2lGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwKUD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFl?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+effhYiESF8VZX1gj9Ha+YgBY?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AGAADLjhpd/5RdJa1lGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwQBAQEBAQsBgUNQA4E/IAQLKIQdg0cDhFKKDIJbl0S?= =?us-ascii?q?BLoEkA1QJAQEBDAEBLQIBAYRAAheCayM0CQ4BAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVLAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAxIREQwBATcBDwIBCA4KAgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQUigwCBawMdAZo5AoE4iGB?= =?us-ascii?q?xgTKCeQEBBYUQGIIRCYEMKAGLXheBf4E4H4JMPoREgwoygiaIaoVJL5tRCQK?= =?us-ascii?q?CFo86hEAbl2mNMJcjAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFQOIFYcBVlAYJBgkEMF4NOilNygSm?= =?us-ascii?q?NawUBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,441,1557187200"; d="scan'208";a="584543639"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Jul 2019 22:58:43 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x61MwhXU027915 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:58:43 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:58:43 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:58:42 -0500
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:58:42 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=0iRpS+4OtlgGidVeg2HV90xInAsRlTKjSTiB21ijXJg=; b=YY4aEdYwPau6wJCj9pFLqvT42TpvMjnfwT5qVZNu38t09NAHZMlpLSSEnIvS78c7r54oxLKMNvcYJ6nZUKPziMdKhlScQCKknG8IyIEwZCo26hqBhA0TU+p93egBsdMAP5A5/j8fI7j2sHBOrVJ2Bp2nnLCWSerd4AI/Q1Ky0S4=
Received: from MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.175.53.139) by MWHPR11MB1680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.172.54.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2032.20; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:58:39 +0000
Received: from MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2456:d2d2:585d:83a2]) by MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2456:d2d2:585d:83a2%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2032.019; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:58:39 +0000
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
CC: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lsr] AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21
Thread-Index: AQHVG+281sKnENvLf0eo2GqtHHjXvKaoIpoAgANC5ICAAo4oAIAAfoMAgAAi4ACAAPFlgIAANt6AgAacHwD//+y0AA==
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:58:38 +0000
Message-ID: <C0E7DCD5-48A2-444F-B8A6-030A4D31BEE1@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESsztO1a4fnT2Gx2GDKcYVLtWS52WZ=HmPdQ9VFqSEtvG7Q@mail.gmail.com> <77F1A67E-2EB8-453E-8E89-70C55A820E03@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxq4dAvGn0n30NnpbygLf13j5uWK6=6feqNJsMDuzuUrQ@mail.gmail.com> <898A5C23-D95A-4CED-B99A-9881C95D236B@cisco.com> <CAMMESsx+KXmQJth+OKBrUkrSoMMuYH=Lk755a7tw0qGwpB6sWQ@mail.gmail.com> <B5FAB592-D74E-44FB-85AF-227AB3FDD2AC@cisco.com> <CAMMESsxumpAV4jR1qhwb-ofywRbj-GtwAVGBiSgm6panrGsQDw@mail.gmail.com> <BYAPR11MB363848AE1ECAF545881723B8C1FD0@BYAPR11MB3638.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20190701200742.GB30898@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190701200742.GB30898@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=acee@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:c0c4:1004::e5]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c0c53e38-2335-4269-e263-08d6fe77a7e5
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MWHPR11MB1680;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MWHPR11MB1680:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB1680E8B266B52954742FFF1EC2F90@MWHPR11MB1680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 00851CA28B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(486006)(476003)(2616005)(446003)(11346002)(186003)(99286004)(6506007)(102836004)(14444005)(76176011)(6636002)(14454004)(5660300002)(256004)(478600001)(6246003)(46003)(66946007)(66476007)(53936002)(64756008)(91956017)(76116006)(36756003)(66556008)(66446008)(25786009)(86362001)(73956011)(6436002)(4326008)(8676002)(8936002)(6512007)(6486002)(81156014)(6116002)(229853002)(81166006)(7736002)(305945005)(2906002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(68736007)(316002)(54906003)(33656002)(110136005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MWHPR11MB1680; H:MWHPR11MB1902.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: GkgPTHNYF5GxrpNnB4gjefPjEjCEF/PgZ5NZiPDhu8xbT4k5rdpkKwRx1iGkXpKfrr8G296TKzVW1xCrxJR6v6yngkg4JM7kojQHY9IuYfHggLjupoxh1vtoF+YHBkK2xwWkQAJ+lhPYs2qpdE4zQv7apMpgMmuHUNao4JyQ1g858AYCUnPQv6sWblY5cPwUx/ip23z2x5nVqS6OOUexucFryKFcrxzj12Y+HH7HCaUC/ib7MpSvU6lQO42ewxghSv41ea/N5weisuyijDFtyJM4Hr2fovXcx1WF80KGzzMjCp3NRJWDP9/A+JDKoSl5DNT3D+/fzMx6vJy1jEKRMASSh8VueSebzGOjUPvxhctLcahYyF+0l+5deIE8XtF16JV5X5csa4ZK8D3Prc5lDPx88fS6aOO8R5oxrdWAW74=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5F93F671DB87074EAC011233A122FD1A@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c0c53e38-2335-4269-e263-08d6fe77a7e5
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Jul 2019 22:58:38.8285 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: acee@cisco.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MWHPR11MB1680
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.21, xch-rcd-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/6XERmt2g8qLOO6TbR0Uox6FZUMA>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2019 22:58:49 -0000

Hi Jeff, 

On 7/1/19, 4:06 PM, "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@pfrc.org>; wrote:

    On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:11:21PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote:
    > I am firmly on the side of Acee on this one – and I think more attention needs to be paid to his initial answer: “B-F-D”.
    > 
    > The implications of this are that we do not expect control plane to have finer granularity than seconds – which is why routing protocol hold times are expressed in seconds (both adjacency hold times and LSA hold times).
    > Which means that even if you had the ability to display “X.mmm seconds remaining” this would not mean that the actual reaction to the timeout would occur within milliseconds of the timer expiration.
    > 
    > I would also argue that operationally it does not matter if an adjacency times out in N seconds or N.5 seconds. This is not used as a fast failure detection mechanism.
    
    I agree for a slightly different reason:
    In general, if your protocol is concerned with second level granularity,
    that's what should be presented at the management level.  
    
    Not to mention let's not make all sorts of implementations have to go put in
    a float to track what's probably been storing an integer for years.

Luckily,  no one is asking for floating point timers. The big mistake was almost 20 years ago when the TE folks decided to use IEEE floating point for bandwidth. 
    
    -- Jeff