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 7ACE81200CE; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 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, 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=WFJLrdjP; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=RDFcThaf
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 KXjq9puuIt9O; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 15:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19318120182; 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=15511; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1562021924; x=1563231524; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=85kSGMPI8bIyzfu4+GTvKX18i3+Ie86RnzwwSI9HkU8=; b=WFJLrdjPR4lS/ZE6lB4R7AcHQlcPyDT6vwufhNJ1T3M/xF5SX+vY4GZt aF/KYcMmX1qmXgVuxd4FT+HVFK5qYsxDZlvnOsxg3GNlWD3xMpb8SqnlA 5xTjt1ip4RoKjw7wWsDRxMBYFs7FL0g5BrPprVTA5rImCWmtYrP+LxogZ U=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ApX3GNBUBVAHs0uyG0WM+VrFksRjV8LGuZFwc94?= =?us-ascii?q?YnhrRSc6+q45XlOgnF6O5wiEPSANiJ8OpK3uzRta2oGXcN55qMqjgjSNRNTF?= =?us-ascii?q?dEwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/Zic3EexJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DAAADNjxpd/5pdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBZ4EVL1ADalUgBAsohB2DRwOOXoI2JYlLiSWEVIJSA1QJAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BDAEBIwoCAQGEQAIXgmsjOBMBAwEBBAEBAgEFbYo3DIVKAQEBAQMSER0BATc?= =?us-ascii?q?BDwIBCA4DAwECKAMCAgIfERQJCAIEAQ0FIoMAAYEdTQMdAQ6aLgKBOIhgcYE?= =?us-ascii?q?ygnkBAQWBRkGDCQ0LghEDBoE0i18XgX+BOAwTgkw+ghpHAgMBgX0NCYJUMoI?= =?us-ascii?q?mjmKEfIhajTtACQKCFoZTiTWDchuXaY0whzmBco14AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFnIYF?= =?us-ascii?q?YcBVlAYJBgkEMF4NOhRSFP3KBKY1wAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,441,1557187200"; d="scan'208,217";a="574078110"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 Jul 2019 22:58:42 +0000
Received: from xch-rcd-011.cisco.com (xch-rcd-011.cisco.com [173.37.102.21]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x61Mwgaa006464 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:58:42 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-RCD-011.cisco.com (173.37.102.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:58:42 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 1 Jul 2019 17:58:41 -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 17:58:41 -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=85kSGMPI8bIyzfu4+GTvKX18i3+Ie86RnzwwSI9HkU8=; b=RDFcThaf6qk7mNZk6gIQR+NssEnHHTfNnaufoY7YnG8MDUKsBE+n9wRs0gK1C5ulskZ3iuvJoeoFErjrxD0Z4ppEfpARgqS6ntnaVI8J1z9lVZVLZXxjhT+d0zWNQxSCZKC86umVkKdUBewqlbiUVxYEGNKsL/GyhVXl1HTEYX0=
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 22:58:40 +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: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
CC: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21
Thread-Index: AQHVG+281sKnENvLf0eo2GqtHHjXvKaoIpoAgANC5ICAAo4oAIAAfoMAgAAi4ACAAPFlgIAGvv8A
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 22:58:39 +0000
Message-ID: <2088A591-268A-4008-8DEF-99E492C927D3@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>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsxumpAV4jR1qhwb-ofywRbj-GtwAVGBiSgm6panrGsQDw@mail.gmail.com>
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: f5637b97-4267-4eb2-ef97-08d6fe77a86f
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-ms-exchange-purlcount: 3
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MWHPR11MB16809209BE00B339F33E3D96C2F90@MWHPR11MB1680.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 00851CA28B
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(136003)(346002)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(53546011)(486006)(476003)(2616005)(446003)(11346002)(186003)(99286004)(6506007)(102836004)(76176011)(14454004)(5660300002)(256004)(478600001)(6246003)(46003)(66946007)(66476007)(53936002)(64756008)(91956017)(76116006)(36756003)(66556008)(66446008)(25786009)(86362001)(73956011)(6436002)(4326008)(8676002)(8936002)(236005)(6512007)(6486002)(81156014)(6116002)(229853002)(81166006)(7736002)(6306002)(606006)(2906002)(2501003)(54896002)(71190400001)(71200400001)(68736007)(316002)(54906003)(9326002)(966005)(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: o/rr8FWCH1y9wTERjSW0qPqOjWvmWTck/F+cS/AB3tfor6CIXYfK7J3nLhdEt0TdXl/1ZdsWPCWINoTR5i6VGt3HcjEAL6SrvpP2fAHoZ5EDyegS2QsjySkyGYbvBa7avgrWE05+QCWSwKo/RLTcBWJ5foFUNSRvMYStdbXPEKWLrI709pCZhu5dge66Ao9RRsETonG4qzN40L8tDn1MjAynv62K4ZNVY/opLHKkOJ6GGElAjoESTE4UBkV7goUpVdDmLzASD+Ivn1uB5YTLTb+2s20okWar4Zzcfs0FaThFhLxRzHDkG0Rk/axu/pIHDTFl5I2SGXqzQtJkYtAMyQpxal9DC/4zzTTsS4ncXKs69w11GqDPui+gPtyv3togCd9UjhrRSnGm1VqO8znNDVtgUfm61twUCdjes1nKmsI=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2088A591268A40088DEF99E492C927D3ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f5637b97-4267-4eb2-ef97-08d6fe77a86f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Jul 2019 22:58:39.7693 (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-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/YO12_dCCh7XIrtI9mutPVB04lZY>
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 22:58:48 -0000

Hi Alvaro,
I believe version -23 addresses your comments. For “config true” timers leaves, I couldn’t use the ietf-routing-types.yang types since the union included “infinity” and “not-set” which aren’t really applicable. I did use the RFC8294 types for “config false” timers.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/

Thanks,
Acee
P.S. I did lose some changes that I hadn’t checked into GitHub. Hopefully, I’ve reconstructed them correctly.

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;
Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:55 AM
To: Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;, "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>;
Cc: "lsr@ietf.org"; <lsr@ietf.org>;, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>;, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org"; <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>;
Subject: Re: AD Review for draft-ietf-ospf-yang-21




On June 26, 2019 at 9:31:05 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>) wrote:

...

...

3936       leaf dead-timer {

3937         type uint32;

3938         units "seconds";

3939         config false;

3940         description "This timer tracks the remaining time before

3941                      the neighbor is declared dead.";

3942       }



[major] For *-timer: Is tracking the remaining time in seconds enough?  I would assume that ms would be the right unit.  Why seconds?

<acee> Because sub-second hellos was a bad idea – three words: B-F-D…'

This question is not about sub-second Hellos…it’s about the *remaining time*.  Even if Hellos are x seconds apart, the “remaining time before the neighbor is declared dead” can still be in ms, right?  Why not?  Note that there are other places in the model that are characterized as tracking the remaining time.

I don’t feel that strongly. However, it would seem that one would use the same granularity as the configuration. No?

I wouldn’t think so.  If I was an operator I would like to know if there are 500ms left before my neighbor dies, and not just 1 or 0.  I think this may also be useful for troubleshooting.

But I’m not an operator…

Alvaro.

We found that the RFC 8294 timer types aren’t good for “config true” values since the values “infinity” and “not-set” are included in the union. Hence, they lend themselves better to operational state than configurable values.