Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-is-is-cfg-29
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 09 January 2019 13:09 UTC
Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 4298B130D7A; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 05:09:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none] 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 SsKovgfHd7Im; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 05:09:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DD6C12F1A6; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 05:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F121066; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:09:02 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id cL5PGUXPXH0R; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:09:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:09:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A52D220045; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:09:02 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H73ib5lWt2Dj; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:09:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (sxchmb04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B4920046; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:09:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1591.10; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:09:00 +0100
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7E82E3005765C8; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:08:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 14:08:59 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
CC: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Ebben Aries <exa@juniper.net>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190109130859.mvjj7gkr4vyh6umt@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Ebben Aries <exa@juniper.net>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
References: <154025553381.13801.5009678921928527816@ietfa.amsl.com> <03ff01d48641$8f8d8600$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <19850_1543334259_5BFD6973_19850_302_6_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B7768B5@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <009101d4a135$a59c2780$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <009101d4a28c$905b2300$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <7264_1546852922_5C331A39_7264_253_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B78A3A5@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <009901d4a779$cc96bfe0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <1676_1547025526_5C35BC76_1676_161_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B78C4EC@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <01ab01d4a80f$aa07ca00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <15144_1547038327_5C35EE77_15144_333_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B78C5C4@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <15144_1547038327_5C35EE77_15144_333_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B78C5C4@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.156) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/XpwWuNV0A6ZcCE4VwlS09E4vOo8>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-is-is-cfg-29
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, 09 Jan 2019 13:09:50 -0000
Hi, please see my other email about the distinction I make between a hard length restriction and the minimum length expected to be supported. I wonder how you can sensibly pick a limit for things like non-best-reason: leaf non-best-reason { type string; description "Information field to describe why the alternate is not best."; } You are simply creating an arbitrary restriction. And humble server is not likely to send you an jpg image (and a bogus server will do so anyway). (There are other similar objects.) Since I am searching for 'type string', I wonder whether these are clear enough definitions. leaf prefix { type string; description "Protected prefix."; } leaf alternate { type string; description "Alternate nexthop for the prefix."; } What is the (canonical) format of the allowed values? (There are more of these.) /js On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:52:07PM +0000, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote: > Hi Tom, > > If you agree, I will set a length restriction on each string (ops and cfg). It looks clearer for me rather than setting it in the description. > > For the references, I'm working on it. > > Brgds, > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 12:38 > To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; Ebben Aries; yang-doctors@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg.all@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-isis-yang-is-is-cfg-29 > > Stephane > > Thanks for persisting. > > On string lengths, I take your point about no user input to Operational > State; there, my concern is more about giving guidance to implementors > as to what they should cater for - as I said, this has been a topic of > lively discussion in other WG. Even before that, whenever I see a > string, I think is there an implicit length restriction and if not, > should there be an explicit one which, as Juergen suggested, could be in > the description clause. My experience is that those working with > networks think about size, about length; those coming from applications > tend to think 'What is a few terabytes between friends?' and are unaware > that sizes that may be commonplace in servers and associated storage can > create difficulties over a network. Whatever, I leave this one up to > you. > > On references, I would like a change; you say this information is in the > base ISO spec. Well, yes, to me that means that it should be a > Normative Reference. I could not understand the description of e.g. > 'i/e' and needed to look it up but seemingly cannot do so with the > listed references of the I-D. Note that RFC such as RFC5305 and RFC6119 > do reference International Standard 10589 and I think that this one > should too, perhaps in s.2.7 and s.5. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 9:18 AM > > Hi Tom, > > Please find inline answers. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 18:45 > > Ok. Top-posting the ones that are not 'ok': > > I said that I thought that LSP did not need expanding on first use and > then checked the RFC Editor list to find that it is not one they regard > as well-known and that LSR protocols use it differently to others, so I > suggest expanding LSP on first use. > > [SLI] Already done for the next version. > > On lengths of text messages, perhaps I am too sensitive to buffer > overrun attacks and the like and so want a maximum on many things (and > then people attach a friendly, 20Mbyte photo to their e-mail at > Christmas and > wonder why their ESP rejects the message so I do not congratulate them > on the latest addition to the family:-). The IDR WG had a lively > discussion about maximum message lengths in 2017 and that has also > stayed in my mind. I have seen the comments on this by Juergen and > Lada; perhaps as Juergen intimates, something in the Description would > help; and while the server may not be rogue, it may not have a perfect > implementation. > > [SLI] What I need to understand from your comment on string length > enforcement is if it applies to operational state or just config states > ? I do not see any issue of not enforcing the operational state as there > is no input from the user there and so no attack vector, this is purely > internal to the implementation. For config statements, it makes sense as > there is an input from the user that can be anything. > > > On the length of password, I saw a Security AD wanting clarification on > this not too long ago so you may see this comment again from one such . > Likewise, MD5 tends to be a red flag although I see it appears in bgp > yang. > > I like the sort of detail in ippm-twamp-yang, on algorithms, entropy and > such like (although I have not seen a review by Security AD/directorate > of that). > > But I am left confused as to exactly what the cited object is doing. > Yes, TLV10 provides authentication for any PDU, but what are the fields > in the YANG module doing? Is > leaf authentication-type { > the first octet of TLV10? Is > leaf authentication-key { > the rest of TLV10? And where is this 'presented' as the YANG module > says? Are you thinking of a YANG client presenting the field to a user > at a terminal, one router presenting it to another, or what? > > I am using RFC5310 as my source for TLV10 and wondering why that is not > a Normative Reference for this I-D > > [SLI] TLV 10 is defined in the base ISO spec of IS-IS. RFC5310 just adds > the crypto auth as new types. > The authentication-type is the first byte of the TLV (called > Authentication Type as well). > The authentication-key cannot be mapped directly to the > authentication-value field. This is the case for ClearText password > authtype but not crypto which adds a keyID in front of the > authentication data. > > > On the I/E bit, the question is, which standard? I have 30 Normative > references to choose from. I found up/down in RFC5305, but only by > accident, and I have not found i/e yet so a reference would be good. > > [SLI] I/E bit is part of the base ISO spec of IS-IS and relevant for > "legacy advertisements" of prefix and links. By the way, after checking, > the position of the i-e leaf is currently wrong and needs to be within > the metric (default, delay...). I will fix this. > > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2019 9:22 AM > > Hi Tom, > > Thanks for your comments. > I wish you an happy new year ! > > Please find inline comments. > > Brgds, > > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2019 12:17 > > Here are the rest of my comments on -29 with a slight tweak to the > subject line. I would regard most of these (but not the first two) as > non-discussable, ie I won't complain if you disagree:-) > > RFC1195 is in the YANG module but not the references of the I-D > [SLI] Will fix it > > RFC5029 is in the YANG module but not the references of the I-D > [SLI] Will fix it > > PSNPs, CSNPs > [SLI] Will fix it > > expand on first use - LSP I think ok > > leaf best { type boolean; > what is true and what false? I can guess from the English semantics of > the name but would rather not guess. > [SLI] Will fix it > To replace the current description which is : ""Indicates if the > alternate is the preferred."", do you prefer: "Set to true when the > alternate is preferred, set to false otherwise" ? > > > leaf non-best-reason { type string; > suggest a maximum length, perhaps 127 or 255 ( unless you expect > screenshots or packet traces to be attached). As it stands, you could > validly receive > a length of 18446744073709551615. > [SLI] Agree, will fix it > > You have a mixture of > System-id system-id System id System ID System Id system id system ID > suggest consistency; system-id wfm > [SLI] Will fix it > > You have a mixture of > lsp-id LSPID LSP ID > here, perhaps lsp-id for the names and LSP ID in the text > [SLI] Will fix it > > case password { leaf key { type string; > perhaps better with a minimum length > [SLI] I agree that it could make sense but is it really something that > we should impose ? > > > leaf i-e { type boolean; > what is true and what false? here I am reluctant even to guess > [SLI] This is coming from the standard, is it really worth repeating it > ? Same for up/down bit. > > > /"Authentication keyto/ "Authentication key to/ > > " the authentication key MUST NOT be presented in" > RFC2119 language means that RFC2119 boilerplate should be in the YANG > module (but without the [..] ie the reference must be plain text not an > anchor). > > [SLI] You are right, it is missing. > > > It is recommended to use an MD5 > hash to present the authentication-key."; > Mmm I think that this may be a red flag to security AD or directorate as > being too vague as well as MD5 too weak; and I think this should be > explicitly called out in Security Considerations. > > [SLI] I agree that there is a point to discuss here. The fact is that we > must not retrieve passwords in clear text. Maybe it is something with a > wider scope than IS-IS. How do the other models deal with passwords > retrieved through "get" or "get-config" ? > > > list level-db { key level; leaf level { > A common convention is for a list of leaf thing to be named things i.e. > list levels { key level; leaf level { > > [SLI] ack > > rpc clear-adjacency { > "Name of the IS-IS protocol instance whose IS-IS > information is being queried. > queried or cleared? > [SLI] "cleared" > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> > Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 6:21 PM > > > > Stephane > > > > A new and different comment. > > > > grouping neighbor-gmpls-extensions { > > > > has a text reference to RFC5307 which does not appear in the > references > > for the I-D. However, before adding it, I would like to know why it > is > > a good reference for switching capabilities (which is part of this > > grouping). I think that the reference for switching capabilities > should > > be RFC7074 (which this I-D does not currently reference and should > IMO). > > > > And that begs the question, why is switching-capability an > unrestricted > > uint8 when only 12 values are valid and three are deprecated? > > > > So why not use > > > > draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types? > > > > I have a number of additional comments on cfg-29 but this is the one > > that may take some discussion. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > Thanks for your comments. I will fix them asap. > > Regarding: > > " Line length is within the RFC limit but the effect is to spread many > > of the description clauses over multiple lines with indentation of 56 > > characters, not user friendly e.g. > > description > > "List of max LSP > > bandwidths for different > > priorities."; > > " > > What's your suggestion on this one ? > > > > Brgds, > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 12:11 > > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of > > draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-24 > > > > Some quirks in-25 > > > > I see lots of YANG reference statements - good - but no mention of > them > > in the I-D references - not so good. My list is > > > > 5130 > > 5305 > > 5306 > > 5880 > > 5881 > > 6119 > > 6232 > > 7794 > > 7810 > > 7917 > > 8405 > > > > Also perhaps > > OLD > > reference "RFC XXXX - YANG Data Model for Bidirectional > > Forwarding Detection (BFD).Please replace YYYY with > > published RFC > > number for draft-ietf-bfd-yang."; > > > > NEW > > reference "RFC YYYY - YANG Data Model for Bidirectional > > Forwarding Detection (BFD). > > > > -- Note to RFC Editor Please replace YYYY with published RFC > > number for draft-ietf-bfd-yang."; > > > > OLD > > reference "draft-ietf-bfd-yang-xx.txt: > > YANG Data Model for Bidirectional Forwarding > > Detection (BFD)"; > > NEW > > reference "RFC YYYY - YANG Data Model for Bidirectional > > Forwarding Detection (BFD). > > > > -- Note to RFC Editor Please replace YYYY with published RFC > > number for draft-ietf-bfd-yang."; > > > > > > Line length is within the RFC limit but the effect is to spread many > of > > the description clauses over multiple lines with indentation of 56 > > characters, not user friendly > > e.g. > > description > > "List of max LSP > > bandwidths for different > > priorities."; > > > > > > Acknowledgements is TBD. I note that the editor list of the YANG > module > > is somewhat longer than the editor list of the I-D. > > > > I note that the augmentation of interfaces seems to have no > conditional > > and so will augment all interfaces. I think that this is a generic > issue > > but do not see it being addressed anywhere. > > > > In a similar vein, you are defining MPLS objects and I am unclear > > whether or not those should be conditional, or part of the MPLS YANG > > modules or both (copying Tarek for this) > > > > Tom Petch > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ebben Aries" <exa@juniper.net> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 12:45 AM > > > > > Reviewer: Ebben Aries > > > Review result: On the Right Track > > > > > > 1 module in this draft: > > > - ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang > > > > > > No YANG compiler errors or warnings (from pyang 1.7.5 and yanglint > > 0.16.54) > > > > > > "ietf-isis@2018-08-09" module is compatible with the NMDA > > architecture. > > > > > > Module ietf-isis@2018-08-09.yang: > > > - Both the description and the draft name reference that this module > > is > > > specific to configuration but contains operational state nodes in > > addition > > > to RPCs and notifications. Any wording suggesting this is only > > > configuration should be changed > > > - Module description must contain most recent copyright notice per > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.1 > > > - Module description reads "common across all of the vendor > > implementations". > > > I don't think this needs to be called out as such as that is the > > overall > > > intention of *all* IETF models > > > - This module contains '22' features (and the respective OSPF module > > currently > > > contains '26'). While it is understood the purpose of these > > features in the > > > module, take precaution as to complexity for clients if they need > to > > > understand >= quantity of features per module in use on a > > > network-element. We are going to end up w/ feature explosion to > > convey > > > *all* possible features of each network-element leading to > > divergence back > > > towards native models at the end of the day. A large amount of > > these > > > feature names could be defined within a more global namespace > (e.g. > > nsr) but > > > this gives us a granular yet cumbersome approach (e.g. feature > > isis:nsr, > > > ospf:nsr, etc..) > > > - RPC 'clear-adjacency' does not have any input leaf that covers > > clearing a > > > specific neighbor/adjacency (See comments below as well regarding > > RPC > > > alignment w/ the OSPF model) > > > - RPC 'clear-adjacency' has an input node of 'interface' however > this > > is just > > > a string type. Is there any reason this is not a > > leafref/if:interface-ref > > > (much like in the OSPF model) > > > - Child nodes within a container or list SHOULD NOT replicate the > > parent > > > identifier per > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.3. > > 1. > > > > > > A case in point is the list /afs/af that has a leaf of 'af' > > > <afs> > > > <af> > > > <af>ipv4</af> > > > <enable>true</enable> > > > </af> > > > </afs> > > > > > > Not only is this replication, but we should likely not abbreviate > > 'afs' if > > > we are using the expanded 'address-family' in other IETF models > such > > as > > > ietf-i2rs-rib > > > > > > > > > General comments on the draft + nits: > > > - Since YANG tree diagrams are used, please include an informative > > reference > > > per > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.4 > > > - Section 1.1 does not need to exist since this would be covered by > > the > > > reference mentioned above > > > - Reference to NMDA compliance should be contained within Section 1 > > (vs. > > > Section 2) per > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.5 > > > - Section 2: It seems reference should be given to the location of > > where the > > > ietf-routing module is defined (As well as reference to NMDA RFC > in > > the > > > above reference) > > > - Section 2.1: "Additional modules may be created this to > support..." > > needs > > > slight rewording adjustment > > > - Section 3: The RPC operations are named 'clear-adjacency' and > > > 'clear-database' rather w/ reliance off namespacing for > uniqueness. > > This > > > section refers to 'clear-isis-database' and 'clear-isis-adjacency' > > > - Section 4: Notification name mismatch in this section from actual > > naming > > > within the module (e.g. 'adjacency-change' should rather be > > > 'adjacency-state-change') > > > - Section 7: Security Considerations will need updating to be > > patterned after > > > the latest version of the template at > > > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines per > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.7 > > > - Section 12: All modules imported within this module MUST be > > referenced > > > within this section per > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.9. > > > There are quite a few missing from this section right now > > > - Appendix A: Some of the XML elements are off in alignment > > > - Appendix A: Examples must be validated. The example given has the > > following > > > issues: > > > - /routing[name='SLI'] and /routing/description are invalid data > > nodes and > > > do not exist. I'm not sure why they are in the XML example here > > > - The example is meant to reference configuration however > > > /routing/interfaces is a r/o container > > > - The control-plane-protocol 'type' needs to be qualified - e.g. > > > <type > > xmlns:isis="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-isis">isis:isis</type> > > > - The area-address does not validate against the pattern regex and > > must end > > > with a '.' e.g. > > > <area-address>49.0001.0000.</area-address> > > > - metric-type/value is set to 'wide' which is invalid. This > should > > rather > > > be 'wide-only' > > > - isis/afs/af/af is set to 'ipv4-unicast' which is invalid. This > > should > > > rather be 'ipv4' per iana-routing-types > > > - /interfaces/interface/type must be populated and is invalid. > This > > should > > > rather be qualified as such: > > > <type > > > xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">ianaift:softwar > > eLoopback</type> > > > <type > > > xmlns:ianaift="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:iana-if-type">ianaift:etherne > > tCsmacd</type> > > > - /interfaces/interface/link-up-down-trap-enable must have a value > > > associated as such: > > > <link-up-down-trap-enable>enabled</link-up-down-trap-enable> > > > - NP container 'priority' has a must statement checking if an > > interface-type > > > is set to 'broadcast' however if you take the XML example from > > this > > > section, it will fail to validate even if <priority> is not > > defined > > > underneath an interface-type of 'point-to-point'. It seems to > me > > that > > > this logic may need to be readjusted or not exist at all > (priority > > can > > > still be set on implementations on loopback interfaces - which > > would > > > default to 'broadcast' in the example here). Could you not > solve > > this > > > with use of 'when' vs. 'must' as such: > > > > > > when '../interface-type = "broadcast"' { > > > description "Priority can only be set for broadcast > > interfaces."; > > > } > > > > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.18 > > ..2. > > > > > > - /interfaces/interface/ipv4/mtu must contain a valid value (and > > likely not > > > need to be defined for Loopback0) > > > - 'isis/mpls-te/ipv4-router-id' is invalid and should rather be > > > 'isis/mpls/te-rid/ipv4-router-id' > > > - 'isis/afs/af/enabled' is invalid and should rather be > > 'isis/afs/af/enable' > > > - Examples should use IPv6 addresses where appropriate per > > > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-3.12 > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > _________________________________________________ > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > yang-doctors mailing list > yang-doctors@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
- [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-… Ebben Aries
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Lsr] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… stephane.litkowski
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… tom petch
- Re: [Lsr] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call re… stephane.litkowski