Re: [Lsr] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01.txt

wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com> Wed, 29 April 2020 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <wangyali11@huawei.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 3B0203A08C6 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 iL3RIaAXdBEx for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 059883A08C0 for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 00:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 10064E1F632CDDA523FE for <lsr@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:42:47 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.62) by lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:42:46 +0100
Received: from DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.32) by lhreml711-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1913.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 08:42:46 +0100
Received: from DGGEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.165]) by DGGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::89ed:853e:30a9:2a79%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0487.000; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 15:42:43 +0800
From: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W0xzcl0g562U5aSNOiAgSS1EIEFjdGlvbjogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1sc3Itb3Nw?= =?utf-8?Q?fv3-extended-lsa-yang-01.txt?=
Thread-Index: AQHWHI89TkiWjTGkZkihdc+oAsFijKiOJIzAgABRBACAASpKYA==
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:42:42 +0000
Message-ID: <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404E36B3B@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <158775698322.10630.8680061282130600215@ietfa.amsl.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404E2F0C1@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <02F132BC-9697-4F6F-9D5E-73854A1086A2@cisco.com> <1520992FC97B944A9979C2FC1D7DB0F404E364E9@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> <8E310073-CADB-4546-B38B-50DCF6922BB8@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8E310073-CADB-4546-B38B-50DCF6922BB8@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.148.246]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/W7Si2sh_pzWGdGKZxhyLiR6mefM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgSS1EIEFjdGlvbjogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1sc3It?= =?utf-8?q?ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01=2Etxt?=
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 07:42:55 -0000

Hi Acee,

Please see inline [Yali2]. Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:20 AM
To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>om>; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01.txt

Hi Yali, 

See [Acee]. 

On 4/28/20, 6:10 AM, "wangyali" <wangyali11@huawei.com> wrote:

    Hi Acee,

    Please see inline [Yali]. Thanks.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] 
    Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 8:27 PM
    To: wangyali <wangyali11@huawei.com>om>; lsr@ietf.org
    Subject: Re: [Lsr] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01.txt

    Hi Yali, 

    On 4/26/20, 10:34 PM, "Lsr on behalf of wangyali" <lsr-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of wangyali11@huawei.com> wrote:

        Dear authors,

        It's valuable work. After reading I have a clarifying question.

        As you defined a Container unknown-tlv and Grouping unknown-sub-tlv in each OSPFv3 Extended LSAs defined in [RFC8362], are these used for extension of new OSPF Extended LSAs and new attributes in each extended LSA, respectively?

    Yes. 

    [Yali]: Could you give an example to illustrate how to use this model? And please add some words to introduce how to use these unkown-tlv and unknown-sub-tlv Container/Grouping?

[Acee] As the name implies, you'd use them for TLVs and Sub-TLVs that are not supported. 

		[Yali2] OK. Got it.

        For example, if other attributes associated with Link are extended to E-Router-LSA TLV for access via NETCONF, does it can be directly augmented leaf of the List sub-tlvs in this YANG module? 

        If not, does it need to define a new YANG module used for other Link attributes can be accessed via NETCONF?

    Yes. There are many features that utilize the OSPFv3 extended LSA format and these will correspond to new models. For example, OSPFv3 segment routing. 

    [Yali]: For example, in RFC8666, the Prefix-SID sub-TLV is a sub-TLV of the Intra-Area Prefix TLV. And in draft [ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01], you also defined grouping intra-area-prefix-tlv which includes a list sub-tlvs. May question is that could we directly use the ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang model and augment a Prefix-SID sub-TLV leaf in the list sub-tlv and do not need to define a new model? If not, why?

[Acee] You'd use them if you supported the augmenting OSPFv3 YANG model. However, in that case, then they'd no longer be "unknown". OSPFv3 features adding new TLVs and Sub-TLVs will not automatically be supported by all routers OSPFv3 routers in the domain. In fact, due to timing there may be features that don't even have corresponding OSPFv3 Extended-LSA YANG model augmentations when the corresponding Extended-LSAs are advertised. 

		[Yali2] That is to say, if new TLVs and sub-TLVs are in well-known features and supported by all OSPFv3 routers, they maybe have the corresponding augmentations in the OSPFv3 Extended-LSA YANG model. Otherwise, it recommends to define new YANG models for new OSPFv3 features adding new TLVs and Sub-TLVs.

    [Yali]: Besides, considering NETCONF and BGP-LS are two parallel solutions for exportation, we suggest separate this draft [draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisement-00]. One draft specifies IGP Extension for IFIT capability advertisement and others specify IFIT capability exportation via NETCONF and BGP-LS, respectively. Do you agree that?

[Acee] I agree that the NETCONF and YANG model should be separate. I didn't agree that it is needed in the IGPs. 

		[Yali2] Do you agree we remove the content about extension to BGP-LS for signaling node capability from the draft [draft-wang-lsr-ifit-node-capability-advertisement-00]? NETCONF and BGP-LS are two parallel solutions for a centralized controller to obtain the node capability. It may not need to combine NETCONF/BGP-LS with LSA among OSPF routers.

Thanks,
Acee

    Thanks,
    Acee

        Best regards,
        Yali

        -----邮件原件-----
        发件人: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] 
        发送时间: 2020年4月25日 3:36
        收件人: i-d-announce@ietf.org
        抄送: lsr@ietf.org
        主题: [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01.txt


        A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
        This draft is a work item of the Link State Routing WG of the IETF.

                Title           : YANG Model for OSPFv3 Extended LSAs
                Authors         : Acee Lindem
                                  Sharmila Palani
                                  Yingzhen Qu
        	Filename        : draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01.txt
        	Pages           : 30
        	Date            : 2020-04-24

        Abstract:
           This document defines a YANG data model augmenting the IETF OSPF YANG
           model to provide support for OSPFv3 Link State Advertisment (LSA)
           Extensibility as defined in RFC 8362.  OSPFv3 Extended LSAs provide
           extensible TLV-based LSAs for the base LSA types defined in RFC 5340.


        The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/

        There are also htmlized versions available at:
        https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01
        https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01

        A diff from the previous version is available at:
        https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-01


        Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

        Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
        ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/



        _______________________________________________
        Lsr mailing list
        Lsr@ietf.org
        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr